# US warns Ottawa of pending WikiLeaks release



## Scott T (Nov 25, 2010)

> By The Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA - The U.S. government has notified Ottawa that the WikiLeaks website is preparing to release sensitive U.S. diplomatic files that could damage American relations with allies around the world.
> 
> ...


 
Hmm, to my way of thinking, if Washington actually does things to Canada that they go into pre-emptive damage control mode at the threat of disclosure, our 'friendship' is built upon a lie and Canada should seriously rethink increasing our ties.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 25, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Hmm, to my way of thinking, if Washington actually does things to Canada that they go into pre-emptive damage control mode at the threat of disclosure, our 'friendship' is built upon a lie and Canada should seriously rethink increasing our ties.



I started doubting the definition of 'Ally' when Bush asked us to go to war but could not tell us why. Judging from the American reactions when France refused to do so without being allowed to review the information, I guess it is roughly something like 'lapdog'.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 25, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I started doubting the definition of 'Ally' when Bush asked us to go to war but could not tell us why. Judging from the American reactions when France refused to do so without being allowed to review the information, I guess it is roughly something like 'lapdog'.


 True 'nuff. Freedom fries, anyone?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 25, 2010)

France has the 4th largest group of soldiers in Afghanistan, after the US, the UK and Germany.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 25, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> France has the 4th largest group of soldiers in Afghanistan, after the US, the UK and Germany.


But, like us, they didn't go to Iraq, even though the French government was willing to if only Washington could supply evidence to support it's claims.

Washington couldn't, and like us France took a lot of heat from those Beltway Bastards when it refused to be involved with invasion of Iraq.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Be prepared guys, with the weakness Obama is showing to all the global bad actors the next two years may make you wish Bush was back in office.  You guys may not be able to just be spectator nations anymore and you may have to actually carry a fair share of the millitary burden around the world.  It is nice to be able to complain when another country is carrying the heaviest end of the millitary burden.  Good luck.  Maybe you can show us how it should be done.  You may have to increase your millitary spending though,  so much for all the socialist goodies.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 25, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Be prepared guys, with the weakness Obama is showing to all the global bad actors the next two years may make you wish Bush was back in office. You guys may not be able to just be spectator nations anymore and you may have to actually carry a fair share of the millitary burden around the world. It is nice to be able to complain when another country is carrying the heaviest end of the millitary burden. Good luck. Maybe you can show us how it should be done. You may have to increase your millitary spending though, so much for all the socialist goodies.


Yeah, we'll just forget about the Canadian servicemen and woman that have died in Afghanistan for you, just to make you feel better.

I'm all for Canada having a military that was the size that it was during WW2, but even then I wouldn't want it to be commanded by Washington. If we go to war, it should be for our own reasons, not yours.

As for the US 'carrying the burden', Iraq was all on you, In a perfect world you would have went alone.

Canadians did not sign up to fight American wars.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 25, 2010)

What weakness is Obama showing towards the world's bad actor's?


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2010)

Buddying up with Hugo Chavez, taking no serious steps to curb Irans nuclear weapons development, alienating Israel and Great Britain, screwing up the U.S. economy with his spending policies that even the Europeans are telling him to stop doing.  He is asked by his field commander for 80,000 combat troops in Afghanistan and then gives him a grudging 30,000 and at the same time gives the enemy the date he is going to pull us out.  The russians and Iranians are playing kissy face with the thugs in Latin America.  You'll see, the bad guys see that they know who he is now, as opposed to what the western press made him out to be, and they realize they have two years to get some things done.  Some have suggested that China may move on Taiwan, we'll see.  Time will tell.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 25, 2010)

Scott T said:


> But, like us, they didn't go to Iraq, even though the French government was willing to if only Washington could supply evidence to support it's claims.
> 
> Washington couldn't, and like us France took a lot of heat from those Beltway Bastards when it refused to be involved with invasion of Iraq.


 
Sorry, yes that was my point.

They attacked the French for questioning in public the existance of WMD in Iraq, but still had no issue with them keeping a large force in Afghanistan.

I'm almost certain we, and every other NATO ally asked for proof in private and told them in private no, the French made a show of it in order to gain trading points in the Middle East.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 25, 2010)

We all should have done it publicly. It's getting kind of tiring being Washington's inflatable date.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 25, 2010)

Scott T said:


> We all should have done it publicly. It's getting kind of tiring being Washington's inflatable date.


 
Unwritten rule of politics, you never embarrass your friends or family in public. 

What would Canada have gained from raising a big stink about evidence for WMD? France gained market share for its weapons in the Middle East. Canada and the US, despite most Americans not knowing about it are each others most important trading partners. One million Canadian jobs rely on exports to the USA, we trade $2 billion worth of goods a day. We settle our disputes 99% of the time amicably at a table, we help each other in the defence of NA, our coast guards have permission to go into each others territory to save lives, we send fire fighters to help with US fires, they do the same, the first foreign aid after Katrina were Canadian navy ships, 9/11 we sent down tonnes of folks to help, the ice storm a few years back, Canadian linesmen went down and restrung power lines. Why would you put all that in jeopardy? 

The US is still the worlds only superpower, it has its own wants and needs in the world. Of course some of its decisions we disagree with, I dont agree with many decisions the Canadian government makes, and the British, and the German, and the Japanese, and the Greeks..

The USA is our friend, our neighbour and our blood cousin, and I wouldnt have it any other way.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 26, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Be prepared guys, with the weakness Obama is showing to all the global bad actors the next two years may make you wish Bush was back in office.  You guys may not be able to just be spectator nations anymore and you may have to actually carry a fair share of the millitary burden around the world.  It is nice to be able to complain when another country is carrying the heaviest end of the millitary burden.  Good luck.  Maybe you can show us how it should be done.  You may have to increase your millitary spending though,  so much for all the socialist goodies.



If the US hadn't invaded Iraq, the world would be a much safer place right now.
Iraq had no WMD other than what the US gave them 2 decades ago, and they had no link with al qaeda or terrorism.

But now, all the nutheads of the world have a cause to flock to, and they are doing so in significant numbers. There wouldn't have been so much heavy lifting is the US hadn't made such a mess in the first place. You do know that the US is responsible for Saddam Hussein and the Iranian fundamentalist regime, right?


----------



## Scott T (Nov 26, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Unwritten rule of politics, you never embarrass your friends or family in public.
> 
> What would Canada have gained from raising a big stink about evidence for WMD? France gained market share for its weapons in the Middle East. Canada and the US, despite most Americans not knowing about it are each others most important trading partners. One million Canadian jobs rely on exports to the USA, we trade $2 billion worth of goods a day. We settle our disputes 99% of the time amicably at a table, we help each other in the defence of NA, our coast guards have permission to go into each others territory to save lives, we send fire fighters to help with US fires, they do the same, the first foreign aid after Katrina were Canadian navy ships, 9/11 we sent down tonnes of folks to help, the ice storm a few years back, Canadian linesmen went down and restrung power lines. Why would you put all that in jeopardy?
> 
> ...


The USA is a friend when it's convenient for them or when they want something. That's where the inflatable date analogy comes in, when they don't need or want something from us, we're tossed in a closet until the next demand comes. And when it does, we're hauled out to get ****ed again.

I'm all for weakening our economic ties to to the US by a minimum of 60% of current levels. The manufacturers would ***** and moan about the loss of a convenient market, but with the opening of European and Asian markets they can recoup those losses with a little extra work. As things stand so far, we are nothing more than an economic colony of the US and that just doesn't sit right with me.

I'm also for re-opening NAFTA, especially the area of energy security. We have none. Even that cow Pelosi made the claim that Canadian oil isn't considered foreign oil by Washington.

Back when I was in high school and Mulroney was selling us out with the original FTA, my cousin had a shirt that summed up Canada/US relations perfectly. On it was a graphic of a bald eagle ****ing a beaver hard, and the beaver had it's front paws covering it's eye (he damned near got expelled for wearing it to school, but that's another topic). 

No, nations should at this point grow some balls say what they think, publicly, instead of pissing their pants when Uncle Sammy tells them to get on their knees.

I look forward to reading the wikileaks release.

What would Canada have gained from raising a stink? Maybe some respect from it's electorate for standing up for our ideals instead of someone else's.


----------



## billc (Nov 26, 2010)

Thanks Ken Morgan.


----------



## billc (Nov 26, 2010)

The terrorists had no iraq invasion when they bombed our embassies in africa, when the blew that big hole in the Cole, when they attacked the world trade center the first time, and when they blew up the world trade center and knocked it down killing 3,000 american and foreign nationals.  Not to mention all the other terror they committed before that.  I have to wonder how they recruited the 19 killers for 9/11 when we hadn't invaded Iraq yet.  Yes, we are responsible for Iran, or more specifically, a left wing President, Jimmy Carter is.  We should have deposed Saadam after the first Gulf war, the first George Bush on advice of moderate Republican/democrat Colin Powell.  Getting rid of saadam was a good move.  It gives the Iraqi people a chance at a democracy which will help stabalize the region, not in the short term, but eventually.  It is far easier, when you have a president interested in dealing with threats, to deal with Iran when you have assets next to their country as opposed to not.  So far the nut jobs have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to kill U.S. soldiers, men and women trained for combat, as opposed to large efforts to kill un-armed civillians here.  That is now changing, look at Mumbai, and the various bomb atttempts here.  They are no longer afraid of us, more because of our show of weakness, releasing guantanomo detainees who go back and rejoin the fight, the civillian trial disaster, the announcing of a date of pulling out combat troops.  Expect more attempts more often and look to Mumbai as the next step in their attacks.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 26, 2010)

Actually the brutal regime of the US installed and supported Shah has a lot more to do with the present situatin in Iran than Carter does. And I can't stand Carter.


----------



## billc (Nov 26, 2010)

I'm not in favor of any brutal regimes but of the two, replacing one bad regime with an even worse regime that is exporting and supporting islamic terrorism around the world, trying and succeeding in getting a nuclear weapon, which it may very well use on the only democracy in the area, as well as giving out radioctive material to terrorists, I think the Shah may have been a less worse alternative.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 26, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I'm not in favor of any brutal regimes but of the two, replacing one bad regime with an even worse regime that is exporting and supporting islamic terrorism around the world, trying and succeeding in getting a nuclear weapon, which it may very well use on the only democracy in the area, as well as giving out radioctive material to terrorists, I think the Shah may have been a less worse alternative.


 
You are aware that the US installed and supported the Shah, but not the Mullahs, right? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to blame Carter for.


----------



## crushing (Nov 26, 2010)

Everyone must be wondering why has the CIA decided to release these documents through Wikileaks, right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 26, 2010)

This whole release translates really to "You may see some documents where we called you names, and said less than nice things about you, your military, and your pet beaver. We didn't mean any of it, we still really love you, now be nice and bend over a bit more for us."


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 27, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> This whole release translates really to "You may see some documents where we called you names, and said less than nice things about you, your military, and your pet beaver. We didn't mean any of it, we still really love you, now be nice and bend over a bit more for us."



+1.

It's not that the US has no love for its allies.
It's just that it is the 'bend over and grab you ankles' kind of love 

In the case of Iran, their previous government (I am counting the last ones as 1) was democratically elected. Too bad for them that they were too friendly to the Russians and the CIA wouldn't stand for it. So they toppled that government and supported the crew who'd eventually be the fundamentalist whackjobs that hold the office now.
Iraq has a similar story.

Several middle eastern countries were progressive in the 50s, with women having right to an education and a job. These days, women only have a right to be stoned to death if they are raped. Somehow, I think it would have been better if those countries had been left alone.
Better for the US too. Because those countries now have no shortage of people who (think they have) an axe to grind with the US, and they are now easily recruited by a couple of people in the background.


----------



## LawDog (Nov 27, 2010)

Every time the USA gets into trouble or has a disaster the rest of the world just sits back and offers little to nothing or just laughs.
When they get into trouble and US aid doesn't arrive on time then we are A.H.s
Our country,(USA), especially the C.I.A., isn't perfect however this country is one of the most giving countries on this planet. It has always been the people of this country who have pushed our government into being so generious.
How many of those USA bangers out there have had your country come over and help the USA during all of her times of crisis.
Most of my relatives either live or have come down from Canada. Everytime I go up there to visit all I hear is USA bashing. Close the borders both North and South
The "only" friends that the US really has are ourselves and England. All of the rest are fair weather friends.
Sorry for being off track.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 27, 2010)

LawDog said:


> Every time the USA gets into trouble or has a disaster the rest of the world just sits back and offers little to nothing or just laughs.
> When they get into trouble and US aid doesn't arrive on time then we are A.H.s
> Our country,(USA), especially the C.I.A., isn't perfect however this country is one of the most giving countries on this planet. It has always been the people of this country who have pushed our government into being so generious.
> How many of those USA bangers out there have had your country come over and help the USA during all of her times of crisis.
> ...


 Yeah, we Canadians were partying it up and laughing ourselves stupid as our Navy was sent down to Louisiana to clear waterways and deliver relief supplies such as food and medicines, and I'm sure our medical personell were laughing up their sleeves as they worked on the people who were injured by Katrina.

Or Canadian firefighter personell who volunteered to go to to the WTC in the aftermath of 9/11 to support recovery efforts immediately after the attacks.

or The Canadians who -- on their own initiative -- gave travellers beds and meals after all of the US flights were rerouted to Canada while American skies were closed after 9/11 

Yup, we just love to laugh at your misfortunes. 

See, it's the unjustified 'Oh, woe is me, I'm all alone' attitude that you just displayed here that has a tendency to piss people off and make you an easy target.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 27, 2010)

LawDog said:


> Every time the USA gets into trouble or has a disaster the rest of the world just sits back and offers little to nothing or just laughs.



That is a patent lie.
You had support from virtually every nation on the planet when you invaded Afghanistan, didn't you? Because we knew that you had a legit cause.
The reason why we didn't join you for Iraq was because we had serious doubts about the whole thing, and the US would not show us the information we asked for.
And looking at it with hindsight, we made the right call because there wasn't any.

Oh and remember when that oil platform blew up some time ago, with the well leaking milliones of barrels of crude oil in the sea?
Many European countries immediately made offers to help, only to be rejected.
Contrary to what you might think, we do offer help when it is warranted, in peace and in war.
But not if all we are told is 'Yours is not to reason why, yours is just to do and die'



LawDog said:


> When they get into trouble and US aid doesn't arrive on time then we are A.H.s
> Our country,(USA), especially the C.I.A., isn't perfect however this country is one of the most giving countries on this planet. It has always been the people of this country who have pushed our government into being so generious.



Nope. You just have a large army and the US needs justification for keeping them around.
The CIA gave Iran their current fundies.
The CIA gave Iraq Saddam Hussein.
The CIA gave Saddam Hussein his initial cache of WMD.
The CIA abducted foreigners in other countries without any legal justification.
And now that yuou have gotten rid of the dictator that was installed by the US, the entire country has turned in a battle field of civil war, and the civilian death tool is worse than ever did.

The US has done good too, aye. But let's not pretend that the US is doing it out of goodwill. It does it just to further their own interest. The UK went to war in Iraq. and their previous PM is getting nothing but flak for that. Because it has been shown that there was no cause for going to war. But Blair bent over when Bush asked him to.


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2010)

Thanks, Lawdog.  From what I have heard, the guy before the Shah was a soviet stooge, so once again the shah was the less worse situation.  Had Carter not allowed the Shah to fall, one, the fundamentalists would not be spreading terrorism around the globe, and the would not be on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon.  Islamic extremists with nuclear weapons with a will to kill everyone in israel, as well as sell it to islamic extremists to explode dirty bombs wherever they can.  So yeah, The shah was horrible, but with the U.S. there is always the possibility that with time the Iranian government would have slowly changed.  That would not have happened with the soviets stooge, or now with the Islamic fundamentalists that Carter allowed to take power by pulling support away from the shah.  I hate thug dictators.  But the thugs in power now are worse than the thug that was in power then.  The reason that ships were not allowed to help with the clean up is because Obama wants to shut down domestic offshore oil drilling.  It suited his purposes to allow the spill to get wores.  Right now he is using his agencies to do more environmental impact studies to keep people from drilling.  It may be six more months before the next one is finished.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 27, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Thanks, Lawdog. From what I have heard, the guy before the Shah was a soviet stooge, so once again the shah was the less worse situation. Had Carter not allowed the Shah to fall, one, the fundamentalists would not be spreading terrorism around the globe, and the would not be on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. Islamic extremists with nuclear weapons with a will to kill everyone in israel, as well as sell it to islamic extremists to explode dirty bombs wherever they can. So yeah, The shah was horrible, but with the U.S. there is always the possibility that with time the Iranian government would have slowly changed. That would not have happened with the soviets stooge, or now with the Islamic fundamentalists that Carter allowed to take power by pulling support away from the shah. I hate thug dictators. But the thugs in power now are worse than the thug that was in power then. The reason that ships were not allowed to help with the clean up is because Obama wants to shut down domestic offshore oil drilling. It suited his purposes to allow the spill to get wores. Right now he is using his agencies to do more environmental impact studies to keep people from drilling. It may be six more months before the next one is finished.


 Being pro-West does not excuse the Shah and his CIA-trained SAVAK scum whose actions against the civilian population would have made Stalin and Saddam green with envy.

The Shah should have had the same ultimate fate as Saddam. God knows he deserved it just as much if not more, for his crimes against his own people.


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2010)

Unfortunately, when you are fighting a great evil, like the Soviet Union, it is not always an option to pick pure as the wind driven snow allies.  For example,  Stalin was a man who murdered around 25 million people and he was one of our allies in WW2 against the then rampaging threats from the socialists in Japan, Germany and Italy.  After the shooting war of ww2 we had to deal with an aggresive socialist threat in the Soviet Union.  Life isn't nice, its not fun and it forces hard choices at times when there is no way to see things clearly or easily.  The threat of Islamic terrorism was made worse by the fall of the shah.  Iran is supporting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is making harder for those countries to move forward.  Iran also supports the terrorissts attaacking Israel and they are trying real hard to get that nuclear weapon.  Does anyone doubt that they will use is against Israel?  Achmadinajad has said they would.  Do you doubt him?  Is that a chance the world should take?


----------



## Scott T (Nov 27, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Unfortunately, when you are fighting a great evil, like the Soviet Union, it is not always an option to pick pure as the wind driven snow allies. For example, Stalin was a man who murdered around 25 million people and he was one of our allies in WW2 against the then rampaging threats from the socialists in Japan, Germany and Italy. After the shooting war of ww2 we had to deal with an aggresive socialist threat in the Soviet Union. Life isn't nice, its not fun and it forces hard choices at times when there is no way to see things clearly or easily. The threat of Islamic terrorism was made worse by the fall of the shah. Iran is supporting the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is making harder for those countries to move forward. Iran also supports the terrorissts attaacking Israel and they are trying real hard to get that nuclear weapon. Does anyone doubt that they will use is against Israel? Achmadinajad has said they would. Do you doubt him? Is that a chance the world should take?


 I've always been of the belief that you're only as good as those you jump in to bed with. When the west -- and the US in particular -- supported Pahlavi, turning a blind eye to all of his excesses, we were no better than him and no better than the Soviets. The only real difference is that while we only rarely disappear someone, we supported those that did it on a regular basis.


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2010)

So, if you were Roosevelt, and Churchhill, and the Canadian Prime Minister of ww2, you would have said, "No,  we will not supply the soviet union, we will give them no aid, Stalin is a monster and we cannot get into bed with him?"  As one of my favorite Talk show hosts Dennis Prager always says, Better Clarity over agreement.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 27, 2010)

billcihak said:


> So, if you were Roosevelt, and Churchhill, and the Canadian Prime Minister of ww2, you would have said, "No, we will not supply the soviet union, we will give them no aid, Stalin is a monster and we cannot get into bed with him?" As one of my favorite Talk show hosts Dennis Prager always says, Better Clarity over agreement.


If we wanted to maintain the illusion that we're better than them, yeah. And FYI, the Canadian PM of the time was MacKenzie King.

Granted that would have marginally reduced the USSR's fighting strength in any given battle(lend-lease aircraft comprised 18% of the Soviet Air Force, but they were spread thin) but as Stalingrad proved, the Nazi's would still have been slowed down.


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2010)

So, to be clear, you would not have allied with stalin during world war 2?


----------



## Scott T (Nov 27, 2010)

billcihak said:


> So, to be clear, you would not have allied with stalin during world war 2?


If I were transplanted from 2010 to 1941, with modern sensibilities intact, and if I knew about instances such as the intentional famine in Ukraine, you're damned right that I wouldn't send him anything. All materiels would have been sent to the UK.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 27, 2010)

What was Churchill&#8217;s quote? &#8220;Had Hitler invaded Hell, I would have something good to say about the Devil&#8221;. You find allies where ever you may, especially in a battle to the death.

Don&#8217;t be so naïve the allies knew what a bastard Stalin was, they may not have known the extent, but they knew. Their view was to keep Germany occupied on two fronts, three if you include Italy, and that meant supplying the USSR.

I was trying to stay out of this but I&#8217;m so ****ing tired of this holier then now attitude that has been in this country ever since Trudeau in regards to the US. Every nation-state thinks it is superior to ever other one. Problem is they don&#8217;t build themselves up with their own accomplishments; they knock others down based on some bad choices the other guy made. It scores massive political points everywhere in the world to be seen thumping your chest and bad talking the US, or any other country that is pissing you off at that moment. Hell they do the same thing in the States to they bad mouth us to score political points. 

Introduction to International relations, second year university, countries look after their self interest first. 

FYI, we're no better then anyone else.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 27, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> What was Churchills quote? Had Hitler invaded Hell, I would have something good to say about the Devil. You find allies where ever you may, especially in a battle to the death.
> 
> Dont be so naïve the allies knew what a bastard Stalin was, they may not have known the extent, but they knew. Their view was to keep Germany occupied on two fronts, three if you include Italy, and that meant supplying the USSR.
> 
> ...


 This may surprise you, but I agree with everything you just said.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 27, 2010)

Can I just ask, as an aside, why we'd send anything to Ottawa.  Isn't Toronto the capital of Canada?  I mean, I saw that John Candy film "Canadian Bacon" and it was there...and JC would be wrong, right?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 27, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Can I just ask, as an aside, why we'd send anything to Ottawa. Isn't Toronto the capital of Canada? I mean, I saw that John Candy film "Canadian Bacon" and it was there...and JC would be wrong, right?


 
You're somewhat mistaken Bob, Toronto is the centre of the known universe.....


----------



## billc (Nov 27, 2010)

At pajamasmedia.com Claudia Rossette has a column that discusses Jimmy Carter's trouble making through the years, in light of his need to chime in on the North Korean situation.


----------



## LawDog (Nov 27, 2010)

Don't call me a liar again.
I was not referring to the war. I did say and have said that the CIA has alot of internal problems and does cause alot of trouble, so what is the issue there? Why don't you bring up the other countrys who have their own style CIA. Do they not do the same thing as our CIA. Do they not cause down the road issues like our clowns do? Does not your own country have it's own CIA type branch? And they do what?
The oil spill, ok, who was left in charge?, well it really wasn't the US government, it was left to the oil industry to clean it up. I personally didn't hear about to many offers and if there were then that was my error.
One thing that you have over looked and that was the time from that my post was covering. This time frame was from the 50's untill now. As far as the Canadian Navy helping out, well you do have me there, the news in my area never, to my knowledge, stated that.
And if you guys don't like my view on things to bad. Like I said before I "used" to travel up to Canada to visit relatives but stopped doing so because I got tied of the "Yank" comments and bashing.
Your posts are just showing how much you resent the USA and I resent to steady "Yank" bashing. It is pretty bad that one who's of Canadian lineage has to stop visiting is family's homeland.
This is the last time I will post on this subject, if you guys want to keep it up then go for it.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 27, 2010)

LawDog said:


> *Don't call me a liar again.*
> I was not referring to the war. I will stand by what I said.


 
Ok, how about deluded, or maybe suffering from self-percieved victimisation?

And the non-war points that were made? Or are you going to ignore them because they don't fit into your world-view.

I don't know you, so I am curious.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 27, 2010)

LawDog said:


> Don't call me a liar again.
> I was not referring to the war. I did say and have said that the CIA has alot of internal problems and does cause alot of trouble, so what is the issue there? Why don't you bring up the other countrys who have their own style CIA. Do they not do the same thing as our CIA. Do they not cause down the road issues like our clowns do? Does not your own country have it's own CIA type branch? And they do what?
> The oil spill, ok, who was left in charge?, well it really wasn't the US government, it was left to the oil industry to clean it up. I personally didn't hear about to many offers and if there were then that was my error.
> One thing that you have over looked and that was the time from that my post was covering. This time frame was from the 50's untill now.
> Your post is just showing how much you resent the USA.


 
Actually CSIS is not allowed to operate outside of Canada.
The Canadian coast guard sent down all the oil booms we had. 
While I disagree with the terminology, I agree with the main point. The world does help the USA when it asks for help. What I believe you fail to realize is that US damn near has everything it needs equipment and people wise. 
But we are there when the USA needs help.


----------



## LawDog (Nov 27, 2010)

I've traveled the world both in war and peace, and you?


----------



## Scott T (Nov 27, 2010)

LawDog said:


> I've traveled the world both in war and peace, and you?


 How is this relevant to anything. As a diversion it really is obvious.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 27, 2010)

ken morgan said:


> i was trying to stay out of this but im so ****ing tired of this holier then now attitude that has been in this country ever since trudeau in regards to the us. Every nation-state thinks it is superior to ever other one. Problem is they dont build themselves up with their own accomplishments; they knock others down based on some bad choices the other guy made. It scores massive political points everywhere in the world to be seen thumping your chest and bad talking the us, or any other country that is pissing you off at that moment. Hell they do the same thing in the states to they bad mouth us to score political points.
> 
> introduction to international relations, second year university, countries look after their self interest first.
> 
> fyi, we're no better then anyone else.



+1


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 28, 2010)

LawDog said:


> Don't call me a liar again.




Then don't say things like
*Every time the USA gets into trouble or has a disaster the rest of the world just sits back and offers little to nothing or just laughs*
Because that is not true.

I don't resent the USA at all. If I did, I wouldn't have gone through the effort of marrying my wife in California at Lake Tahoe, nor would we have taken the 3 week road trip as a honeymoon.

What I do resent is quotes like yours.


----------



## LawDog (Nov 28, 2010)

Point is / was while traveling I have heard first hand all of the anti American b.s. around the world. Even on this this servers postings there is a level of resentment against my country and I resent that. 
You didn't like my comments about your country but we Americans are supposed to put up with your countrymans direct or in direct bashing of ours? My opinon is just that, my opinon. 
As for being a forum mentor you are supposted to be setting an example and calling someone a liar is not it.
You and Scott T should have your bios filled out better so that everyone knows who they are really talking to. Mine is.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 28, 2010)

I just never got around to it, but if you insist on such an irrelevancy:

Full name: Scott Christopher Torwalt

Location: Love, Sask, Canada

Occupation: Industrial Construction

Website: archangelonthenet.com

Anything more than that is on my Facebook page, so I don't see the point of posting it here.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 28, 2010)

sometimes maybe i do wish polygamy was legal.

That way I could marry both Scott T and Bruno at the same time  :uhyeah: 

seeing as how I agree with everything they both say in this thread.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 28, 2010)

Blade, their egos are big enough you know.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 28, 2010)

It's not just Canada that has been warned about the Wikileaks, the UK, Israel, and quite a few others countries have been told by Amercian ambassadors that there will be stuff in the leaks they won't like.

Many Britons and Europeans have offered and sent help for Americans when they needed it, Katrina, 9/11 etc. I know many who fundraised for both and many firemen, etc who went to help in New York after 9/11. The oil spill people were offered help from our government but were told it wasn't needed. Despite it being called BP, it is a private company not governement owned and is in fact mostly American now rather than British. We followed you into Korea, Iraq twice and now Afghanistan. I can't think of a single situation where we have sat back and laughed at any situation the US has had, to be honest I haven't seen any other place where they laugh at America either. There are countries that hate America and everything American but these are places that also hate the rest of the world also.

Other countries do have more interest in America than other places mainly because as the saying goes, 'America sneezes and the rest of us catch a cold', what you do and who your president is affects us so you can't expect anythoing other than interest from us and yes sometimes criticism such as that mess up in the sub prime mortgage market that has affects many of us for a lot of reasons but started in America.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 28, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Blade, their egos are big enough you know.





btw everyone felt sorry for america after 9/11. We had a first anniversary gathering in 2002 and 2 min silence outside the uni Thousands gathered. and one in 2001. We Newfoundlanders did much for those stranded in Gander here in the aftermath. I even volunteered to help then. Everyone who could did something.......

Then america invaded Iraq.


----------



## crushing (Nov 28, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> We followed you into Korea, Iraq twice and now Afghanistan.



Don't forget Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia part II.  I don't think you were involved in Somalia part I, Haiti I or II, or the Second Liberian Civil War.

Now back to the pending WikiLeaks release:

What if the WikiLeaks release is documents of how Bush was manipulated by the various other listed governments in to believing that Iraq had developed WMDs?


----------



## Scott T (Nov 28, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> sometimes maybe i do wish polygamy was legal.
> 
> That way I could marry both Scott T and Bruno at the same time :uhyeah:
> 
> seeing as how I agree with everything they both say in this thread.


 Careful what you wish for, young lady.  :lol:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 28, 2010)

Wikileaks is reportedly under a massive denial of services attack at the moment. 

Of course, the last round of "it'll kill puppies" panic was proven to be a farse, even the US DoD said so.

Wonder who's DOSing em.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 28, 2010)

While the US is the most capable (and obvious) culprit, that doesn't rule out other nations, such as the UK, israel or others who don't want their backroom deals open to public scrutiny.

Or it could even be an attention-grabbing move by Assange himself.

Unless someone comes forward, it's impossible to say.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 28, 2010)

I organized a fundraiser in my forum, and sent 5 kilos of high end Belgian chocolates and candy each to a UN platoon in Iraq and a US platoon in Afghanistan. All because I hate the Americans of course. Probably. Or something like that?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 28, 2010)

DOS... No doubt the US various agencies have the oomph to pull that off, and they have a decent motive. But anyone knows that DOS is only a temporary lution, and only works until the wikileaks folk take take a couple of USB keys and leave them in an internet cafe, or upload it to an anonymous torrent.
If it is the US, then I guess it is either an act of desparation, or they need to win 1 or 2 days time before they pounce in some definitive way.

EDIT:
I just read about this in the news. Apparently a lot of it contains denigrating and insulting remarks about US 'allies'.
Seems like a case of people having forgotten not to write anything down in communications if they couldn't deal with it falling in the wrong hands.
Talking down about other countries and people in general communications is a bad idea.


----------



## Ramirez (Nov 28, 2010)

From the Guardian

Wikileaks story


----------



## crushing (Nov 28, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> From the Guardian
> 
> Wikileaks story





> ...the release of unflattering pen-portraits or nakedly frank accounts of transactions with the US which they had thought would be kept quiet.



The airing of grievances isn't supposed to happen until December 23rd after dinner.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 28, 2010)

Good read


----------



## crushing (Nov 28, 2010)

More information, including links to other sites with the Wikileaks release can be found here: http://owni.fr/2010/11/27/wikileaks-statelogs-diplomatic-assange-application-insurance/


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 28, 2010)

I think most of our allies are mature enough to handle the written down pique of some of our ambassor corp.  The communications seem to show human behaviour, good and bad, of every country we deal with.

As far as other countries hating on us, that isn't my experience.  I have friends from around the world.  While they don't always agree with our policies or the we're-America-so-we-can-do-what-we-want attitude of some of our citizens, I find that the attitude toward my country is very good.  Heck, sometimes my over seas friends know more about my country than my in country friends.  The only time I see my frinds from over seas get irritated with an American is when that American starts getting arrogant.  You could insert any other country into that sentence and it would be the same.  I really don't feel like we are the poor picked on USA.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 29, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> From the Guardian
> 
> Wikileaks story



I found this bit interesting:

_"Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals."_

How about: if you don't want to be caught with your pants down, don't put your pants down.

As an administrator of a large forum, my primary tool for resolving conflict is diplomacy. When I talk with people about problems they have or are causing, I always assume that my PMs will be forwarded or shared. By using the correct words, I can always say what I want to / have to say without having to fear the results of those words being read by others. Privacy does not exist. For anyone. Being arrogant would only make my life more difficult.


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 1, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Careful what you wish for, young lady.  :lol:



Hehehe :lol:


----------



## Nomad (Dec 2, 2010)

As a Canadian who has chosen to live and work in the US, and raise my family here, I'd like to contribute a bit to this discussion.

IMO, the US does a lot of good things around the world, from it's humanitarian work and disaster relief to peacekeeping efforts in war-torn regions.  It also makes mistakes in judgement and action that tend to come back and haunt it for many years (see Iran, Iraq, etc.).  Installing and toppling foreign regimes is definitely one of the areas that hasn't had a lot of success over the years, but has caused a great deal of resentment and distrust, and in many ways has helped lead to the current situation in the middle east (among other places).

I do not indulge in (much) US bashing, although many things about the US concern me and many I completely disagree with.  The US does tend to treat Canada as a little brother, sometimes condescending and other times bullying it into shape, with little regard for the fact that we are each others' largest trading partners.  

In turn, Canadians are often baffled by many aspects of american culture, including the intense religious fundamentalism, the possibly related militaristic and nationalistic stance the country takes in almost all of it's dealings with others around the world, the extreme political partisanship that makes the word "compromise" a foreign concept to both parties, and the fiasco they have made and continue to make of the fairly simple concept of universal health care.  

Of course, most Americans fail to see the splendor that is Curling, or understand the sublime wonder of Tim Horton's coffee and donuts, or how good poutine is (there may even be some other cultural differences too).

This tends to result in taking some pot shots south of the border, especially if there's a cross-border Olympic gold hockey game taking place (sorry, couldn't resist that one).

The reality is that when the chips fall, both countries have backed each other up through crises, natural disasters, and multiple wars from WWI through Afghanistan.  There are many, many stories of Canadians just getting in their cars (or in one case, their ambulance) and driving to New York to help after 9/11, for instance... not even including the official government support that came afterwards.

Disagreeing with a policy or refusing to enter a war without just cause does not make us enemies, any more than making disparaging comments about each others' ambassadors (while not exactly a smart move in itself) would do.

Both countries have a lot of strengths and more than a few weaknesses, but are overall great places to live compared to much of the rest of the world.  If I feel that has changed, due to further political polarization or untenable policies in the US, I will take my family back home... but I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2010)

The criticism of British troops by Americans is hurtful and from the Afghans is just hateful but as one of our commanders said...

_"Col Stuart Tootal, former commander of 3 Para, the first battle group sent to Helmand province, said the documents were not particularly relevant._
_He said: "They reflected individual views, within an alliance, which were also about a period where there were challenges due to a lack of resources. _
_"We've now moved on significantly, we've now got 10,000 British troops, 30,000 Nato troops, and Nato has turned the corner. _
_"*But I think you'll also find these are views of people who aren't actually fighting in Helmand themselves, and don't necessarily realise the challenges they face."*_

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11906147

I find the idea of the American government/military officials cosying up with the Afghan president to criticise us distasteful to say the least, it's somewhat hateful. Our soldiers are dying and being maimed for this disgusting Afghan president and all he can do is criticise, after his troops have actually turned on and killed British soldiers, he's having a laugh that one. This analysis is correct for those of us who have lost friends and loved ones it really does sting, though recent commendations from the American military are appreciated. 

_Jonathan Beale Defence correspondent, BBC News _
_This time the private, unvarnished reports from US diplomats have the potential to offend America's strongest ally in Afghanistan. _
_They reinforce a criticism made before of British forces that they have not been aggressive enough or present in sufficient numbers. _
_This should not come as a huge surprise. President Karzai has been critical of British military efforts in the past. British commanders have long acknowledged that, until the recent US reinforcements, they did not have sufficient forces to stabilise the major population centres within Helmand. _
_The blunt private comments are also contradicted by more recent public praise from US military commanders. _
_US Marine Maj Gen Richard Mills said the UK's efforts in Sangin had been "simply nothing short of remarkable". _
_*And they need to be tempered by the realities on the ground. The US Marines who have now taken over Sangin have found it to be just as dangerous and deadly as the British*._
_*Yet these words could still cause hurt and offence - not least for the families of those 345 British service personnel who have lost their lives in Afghanistan*_



345 soldiers killed may not sound much to those countries who have huge armies to call on of military, we don't, we have just over 113,000 soldiers in our *entire* army.

Our brigade is back now, the figures are 50 dead, 30 triple amputees and 800 others injured as a result of enemy action. There were 9,300 troops sent from here_._


maybe we aren't 'mature' enough to cope with criticism from those we are trying to help but frankly foxtrot oscar is what we feel like saying at the moment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-cables-afghan-british-military


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

I have not followed the issue. But from what I have heard, it seems to be about par for the course, nothing that was not somehow reflected in the media, too. I feel it is somewhere along the line that you know your mother-in-law hates your guts, but now you actually have proof of what she says behind your back.

But I am not sure if the US troops aren't stung by that as well. The forgotten few send into the mountains after the real target, while the bulk was send to look for the car keys under the street light.

I think Germany caught some critisism (man I can't spell) for not sending more troops instead of being grateful they send something, after all, it's in the constitution that they can't just send armed men around the world....

I find Americans in general ignorant of the outside world. I mean really, even about the two countries they share borders with, little is know. And those are the people they draw from for sensitive positions. 

I don't think I am making myself very clear though. 

I don't think it's done mean spirited - the core sentiment of putting people down in those notes - it's more the lack of self control or the need to be witty.


I know I am too soft at times when people need to get slapped for behaving badly....




Then again some of what I heard that is in the files, you only had to read the papers to see that they were not alone with their opinion. Like the Italian Prime minister.... :lol:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 3, 2010)

Criticising politicians is fair game, they set themselves up for it. The leaks have said Brown was a lousy Prime Minister which he was so I have no problem with that. Even if he had been any good it's still not a problem criticising him as he is a public figure who put himself there, you have to take the rough with the smooth in that case.

However criticising British troops saying they won't go outside the camps is unfair and also a blatent lie. It's accusing them of cowardice which is outrageous even more so if you know the troops. They are brave to the point of almost being stupid about it. You can blame the government for their orders or even senior military leaders but to blame the soldiers is dispicable.


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Criticising politicians is fair game, they set themselves up for it. The leaks have said Brown was a lousy Prime Minister which he was so I have no problem with that. Even if he had been any good it's still not a problem criticising him as he is a public figure who put himself there, you have to take the rough with the smooth in that case.
> 
> However criticising British troops saying they won't go outside the camps is unfair and also a blatent lie. It's accusing them of cowardice which is outrageous even more so if you know the troops. They are brave to the point of almost being stupid about it. You can blame the government for their orders or even senior military leaders but to blame the soldiers is dispicable.



I think they - openly - critizised German troops for staying in the 'safer' areas...

I can't really put it into thoughts...Hubby is ex-army, I got a soft spot for the guys in uniform...
I think the theme is to lay blame at the bottom end of the chain. 

I personally don't put much weight in any of that what was said, openly or not, because it was such a quagmire time.

I mean, the tenor was 'if you are not with us you are against us' so what if the direction given was off a deep end...heaven forbid that an elected official actually acts in his/her country's best interest....

We just had the Congressional Medal of Honor awarded to a live soldier this past November. It has not happened in a long time. Usually the recipients did not survive their act of bravery. The young man earned it in the same hell hole those papers accuse your guys of cowardice in. The stories are pretty sobering. 
I do believe some apologies are in order, but I doubt they are forthcoming.

But I am with you. I don't think a desk jockey has grounds to speak about those with the bullets zipping over their heads...


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The criticism of British troops by Americans is hurtful and from the Afghans is just hateful but as one of our commanders said...



This is a tempest in a Tea Pot. Im with Mike:



> "There's not a stitch of significance in these "revelations." Almost all of it has been hashed and rehashed and rehashed. That there has been disagreement between British and US forces is well known. For that matter, I've probably never been to two US units (or British units), who think another unit knows what it's doing. Ask a US Marine if the US Army knows what it's doing, or the inverse, and you'll get an earful. The British definitely were under-resourced in Sangin, just as all of us were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence the Iraq surge and then the Afghanistan surge."
> 
> -Michael Yon


----------



## The Last Legionary (Dec 4, 2010)

Maybe all these thin-skinned people should have taken up a different career than soldiering. Something safer, like knitting or feltching. Because if they are all bent out of shape because someone in a rival service or branch is calling them names, them maybe they need to go home and cry to their mommies.

As to the diplomats, diplomacy is the art of school yard gossiping and back dealing, on a bigger stage, with more at risk should someone get their hair pulled.

Piss on em all.

Why can't Wikileaks release something more interesting, like Bill Clintons Intern DVD?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 4, 2010)

Canadian man killed and his daughter escapes. 
US helps get daughter to Belize.

http://beta.ca.news.yahoo.com/canadian-man-dead-daughter-safe-central-america-family.html

"U.S. helicopters transported Egrmajer to Belize, where she had been communicating with Canadian authorities, said Melvin Duarte, a spokesman for the Honduras prosecutors office."

No idea who these people are, but thanks to the US for helping.


----------



## billc (Dec 4, 2010)

Nomad, I appreciate curling, I saw that calender with the women of curling.  Great sport.


----------



## crushing (Dec 4, 2010)

Going after governments is one thing, but now that Wikileaks is going to go after big banks it's time to charge Assange with rape.  Kind of gives another clue as to who has the power and the most to hide.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 5, 2010)

The Last Legionary said:


> Maybe all these thin-skinned people should have taken up a different career than soldiering. Something safer, like knitting or feltching. Because if they are all bent out of shape because someone in a rival service or branch is calling them names, them maybe they need to go home and cry to their mommies.
> 
> As to the diplomats, diplomacy is the art of school yard gossiping and back dealing, on a bigger stage, with more at risk should someone get their hair pulled.
> 
> ...


 

I think you missed the bit about the Afghan president whinging that the British troops were useless, this is the guy that we are keeping in power, who is making a fortune in bribes and for whom our soldiers are dying. The soldiers actually have said NOTHING about this so why you are singling them out I don't know. It's not a rival branch of the armed service, it's the head of a country we are busy trying to defend from people who want to kill him, and who are trying to make his peoples lives better. 

The troops have said nothing but it's hurtful for families who has lost people or who are caring for the wounded to have these things said in public. Try a little empathy instead of waspishness.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 5, 2010)

Personally, I say pull all our troops out, all the support staff, all the supplies, aid, etc, and let them have their country.  When they cry about it being a cluster, tell them to grow a pair and do it themselves.


----------



## granfire (Dec 5, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Personally, I say pull all our troops out, all the support staff, all the supplies, aid, etc, and let them have their country.  When they cry about it being a cluster, tell them to grow a pair and do it themselves.



Sadly we have had our collective fingers in the pie for over 30 years....

can't really show up uninvited to a party, rear down the house and leave the home owner with the clean up...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 5, 2010)

granfire said:


> Sadly we have had our collective fingers in the pie for over 30 years....
> 
> can't really show up uninvited to a party, rear down the house and leave the home owner with the clean up...


I'm ok with it.  
Here's my plan:
Cut foreign aid to 0. Invest that money in the US.
Pull all US troops out. Close all foreign bases, etc. Deploy to fortify the US.
Focus all efforts currently being spent overseas into improving our own nation.
I never will understand why we continue to play nice with nations who hate us, to do favors for governments who stab us in the back, or stick our necks into where they aren't wanted.  Put that effort into eradicating crime, poverty, hunger in the US instead.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 5, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I never will understand why we continue to play nice with nations who hate us, to do favors for governments who stab us in the back, or stick our necks into where they aren't wanted. Put that effort into eradicating crime, poverty, hunger in the US instead.


 
Becuse the good often outweights the bad.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 6, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> for governments who stab us in the back, or stick our necks into where they aren't wanted.



No offense Bob, you know I am not a US hater, but politically speaking, the US does those things because it gains from them one way or another. Not out of philantropical reasons. Do you think that Europe wants the US bases? The US has those bases for operational and strategic reasons. Not because we are asking for it. My own country has a joint US - Belgian base just for storing 30 odd nukes. The existance of those nukes has to be the worst kept secret in military history, and has been confirmed by accidental slips of the tongue, and (interestingly) the leaked cables. Those nukes are here not for our benefit, but to give the US the opportunity to take off with fighter jet deployed drop nukes at a moments notice.

If the US were to do what you suggest, they lose all strategical advantage they have, as well as cause a mass unemployment because all those soldiers can't be stationed in the US. You'd kill the US economy. And to make matters worse, you'd kill nearly the entire military industry and their enablers. If you thought the current recession was bad, then that would cause a national depression. The US needs a large military to
a) maintain strategic (and thus economic) advantage
b) keep those people out of the job pool
c) support the military industry.

I don't say this can't change. It can. But if you want to avoid the negative economic impact, then it has to be done really slowly. And that won't happen because the US doesn't want to give up their strategic advantages.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 6, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> No offense Bob, you know I am not a US hater, but politically speaking, the US does those things because it gains from them one way or another. Not out of philantropical reasons.


 
The same as every other country in the world. Though I would actually argue that there are things that the U.S. government actually does for altruistic reasons.



> Do you think that Europe wants the US bases? The US has those bases for operational and strategic reasons. Not because we are asking for it.


 
Do you really believe that? Do you really think that those countries which sponsor bases in Europe do so un-willingly. Especially since most of these bases were started after WWII and during the Cold War with Russia threatening to the east.

Maybe Europe _no longer _wants U.S. bases on their soil. But how about you ask the South Koreans how they feel about soldiers on their land.



> Those nukes are here not for our benefit, but to give the US the opportunity to take off with fighter jet deployed drop nukes at a moments notice.


 
At one time I'm sure these nukes were also for Belgium's benefit, like during the Cold War. They may have prevented masses of T-72s from being at your front doorstep.



> If the US were to do what you suggest, they lose all strategical advantage they have,


 
Not at all. We still have the world largest and most effective navy which can make it's presence felt damn near anywhere. 




> as well as cause a mass unemployment because all those soldiers can't be stationed in the US. You'd kill the US economy. And to make matters worse, you'd kill nearly the entire military industry and their enablers. If you thought the current recession was bad, then that would cause a national depression.


 
Why not? In fact, bringing all of those troops home would decrease the U.S. unemployment due to the fact that there would need to be an expansion of goods and services to support them.

Not only that, but according to Wikipedia there are 369,000 military personnel stationed outside of the U.S.  If we subtract those who are engaged in active combat operations and their supporting units, you are looking at 221,000 people stationed abroad.  Heck, we _detain _more illegal immigrants then that on a yearly basis.



> I don't say this can't change. It can. But if you want to avoid the negative economic impact, then it has to be done really slowly. And that won't happen because the US doesn't want to give up their strategic advantages.


 
Who said anyone actually wants it to change.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 6, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Who said anyone actually wants it to change.



Bob did 

Btw perhaps I did not phrase it correctly.
The nukes benefited us, simply by the fact that they are stationed here, although France and the UK have them as well. that was deterrent enough, realistically. The additional American nukes did not singularly 'hold back the russkies'.
But regardless of how much the nukes were of benefit (if they were), nukes were not placed here for our benefit. They were placed here for strategic reasones, and the US needed a place to put them. France the UK already had 'em and had too much clout to be trusted with access to US nukes. Germany is out for historical reasons. Spain is too far from the Eastern block. Italy was not to be trusted after WW2. Don't know why they didn't choose the Netherlands but they ended up picking us because we were convencient, available and not a major player.

Btw, I don't mean that there is anything wrong with furthering political gaols. Every country on earth do it. We do it too wherever we can.
But bob seemed to imply that the US was in it for the philantropical angle, which is not true.
And it is also not true that only the US does nice things for the rest of the world. Last time I checked, our military were active in Afghanistan, Uganda, Congo, Benin, Atalanta and Lebanon, mostly on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

The fact is that every country does things like that, including foreign aid.
And usually they get it back when needed as well.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 6, 2010)

If the US followed my idea, the local economies of many a base-town would be devastated. There are countries that put up with US bases simply because US troops and the resulting support add US$ to the local economy.

My position is that US assets should be deployed domestically to deal with our own issues, now squandered on ingrates.  There is also a credibility issue, IMO. We say to others "we can fix you" yet we're a mess at home.  It's like the marketing guru who shows up in a 1975 Pinto.  Doesn't scream success.


----------

