 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Now, lets try to assert soverignty over the arctic ice pack, or maybe the North-West passage...
No? Right. We are not prepared to spend the dollars and exercise the will... we lose, they win. |
So what would you suggest that we do?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Spend a few dollars? Have at least 2 nuclear subs? We are in the G7, aren't we? Can't we afford it?
No? OK. Just walk all over 1/3 of our sovereign territory because we can't do f*ck all about it... |
How will two nuke subs stop the Americans from entering our territory whenever they feel like it? Let's say a couple of American submarines sail through the Canadian Arctic Ocean. You're the PM and you've got two nuke subs up there. What would you do?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Perhaps if we had our own military, we wouldn't need to call for American military aid next time we have an ice storm.
Just a thought.
If our military isn't strong enough to handle ice, what good is it?
They may as well eliminate it completely. Fund it adequently or stop wasting our time. Yeah! That's the ticket. |
I agree that the Forces need more funding, but preparing the Forces to defend Canada from the Americans is another question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
What kind of "sovereignty" do you want to maintain there?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:25
|
|
This is a really unexpected threadjack. After several pages on wood tariffs, we have 2 pages on the Canadian (lack of) military 
GP :
I don't think you were "doing fine" in 1990-2001 without an Evil to fight against. During this period, the US was looking for an enemy, but didn't find one as satisfying as the USSR. First, Saddam was the Evil, then there was some searching among usual "bad" countries (Somalia, Sudan, Lybia etc.). Then Milosevic was the villain of the world, and after his defeat, another search happened again (I remember the news Networks were more hostile to France than ever at this time). Saddam got hit once during the LEvinsky affair (and the US/UK are currently still bombing it).
Sept 11. gave a long lasting, big enemy. And sadly, the US reacted the old way : rather than trying to understand why, and change its diplomatic ways, it charged and charges again, using Sept 11. as a legitimation machine.
Please tell me of any period when you feeled the News Networks and the Politicians didn't talk bad of one particular country, or of one particular foreign leader.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
If, on the other hand, we had vessels which could enforce our sovereignty, then maybe the Americans would have to listen to us on matters of the Arctic, rather than just laughing.
|
But even if we had attack nuke subs, would we use them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
GP:
Funny how you can get worked up about a little criticism of your share of stardust.
"1. Great one dude predicted it. Means alot?"
Just one example to add to what you've said.
"2. DeToqueville is not taught as a "simple glorification" of America. He does come up with some very apt analyses of the American spirit. And in general is impressed with it."
That was the 1830s when the US was the most progressive country. Today the US is the least progressive western country. I'd also say that today's political and social system is very different from 170 years ago, and I do not think attitudes are unchanged.
"Unlike you, who obsess about the US and our "glory" and good press and the like."
While I said differences are gradual, the US is to me the strangest western country. I find it quite interesting. If you feel jumped on the balls, that's your problem.
"BTW, you seem to be in the minority of business-minded young people in Europe. They were all vying for assignments in the US, when I worked in Germany and Swistzerland."
When was that ?
"Very little enthusiasm in reverse. I even heard lots of your countrymen who thought the US was far more dynamic and interesting in terms of business."
You obviously do not understand the Austrian mentality. (Well, nobody really does, not even us  ) |
I really could care less if you think we are less "progressive". We are still a trend leader in entertainment and technology.
Fact remains that the people I met in business wanted to come to the US. Including after the bust. They still think things are a lot more dynamic here. Comment from one German..."You can breathe here." Of course you wouldn't know, since you've never visited. Unlike me who's been all over Europe. Have fun analyzing everything from afar.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
This is a really unexpected threadjack. After several pages on wood tariffs, we have 2 pages on the Canadian (lack of) military
GP :
I don't think you were "doing fine" in 1990-2001 without an Evil to fight against. During this period, the US was looking for an enemy, but didn't find one as satisfying as the USSR. First, Saddam was the Evil, then there was some searching among usual "bad" countries (Somalia, Sudan, Lybia etc.). Then Milosevic was the villain of the world, and after his defeat, another search happened again (I remember the news Networks were more hostile to France than ever at this time). Saddam got hit once during the LEvinsky affair (and the US/UK are currently still bombing it).
Sept 11. gave a long lasting, big enemy. And sadly, the US reacted the old way : rather than trying to understand why, and change its diplomatic ways, it charged and charges again, using Sept 11. as a legitimation machine.
Please tell me of any period when you feeled the News Networks and the Politicians didn't talk bad of one particular country, or of one particular foreign leader. |
Milosovic got very little press prior to the Kosovo War. And the public was rather blase about the whole Kosovo war. And we were pretty reluctant ringleaders in that little affair. Seems like the Europeans can't take care of business themselves. They have to have us to make themselves think they are serious about going through with something. Comparing the public reaction to Kosovo with WW2 is like comparing a freight train to a donkey.
You still ahven't responded to my point that the political reactions you cite are much more related to any superpower than to something fundamentally American. And they are rather recent. I don't think you are getting to the core of the American character. You are just getting to what has you riled up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"We are still a trend leader in entertainment and technology."
I thought Toqueville was writing more about social and political structure, than waltzes and steam engines....
"Comment from one German..."You can breathe here." Of course you wouldn't know, since you've never visited. Unlike me who's been all over Europe."
Well I at least know germans. Usually you cannot take seriously what german (or austrian) businesspeople say about business environments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:25
|
|
Put simply, I think the American society is fundamentally divided, because it is made of many communities which don't share the same values. The black riots in Los Angeles are a symptom of that.
Call it a hunch, but many elements help me having this hunch (massive abstention, hate crimes, affirmative action etc.)
I do believe the US would explode between these communities if it wasn't tied together artificially by uniting against a common enemy : nazi Germany, USSR, some-random-country-because-we-didn't-find-any-worthy-replacement-yet, next the Arab World, China ?
That's why I think the US is original in regard to other empires when dealing with an enemy.
But I may be wrong : every time another Nation needs to blame another, the US is the easy scapegoat. In non-American countries, there is some kind of stability in blaming a foreign country (if in doubt, blame the US). Since the US can't do this, maybe it just picks regularily a country to be the scapegoat. I don't know if the US are especially more keen to blame other countries, I just feel so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"I take seriously that she preferred being over here."
Well what exactly - did she tell you that here, or did she start a business in the US, or what ?
"There is more to life than Greenspan-kvetching..."
Sometimes you're taking this forum too seriously...
"Not just sat in Austria and gotten all out of joint every time some story came out praising US business environment."
I have no problem with that as long as it stays realistic. What annoys me are the permanent stupid jabs at Europe that then occasionally pop up in my work. Like on entry regulation rules, bancruptcy laws, etc etc...
And I'm talking about regulatory issues mostly. I'm not talking about how easy it is to get funding, cause I do not know that. Just as from visiting Austria, you do not know how our trade code works. Or what it means when businesspeople here say "it's all so awful".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
GP :
I don't think you were "doing fine" in 1990-2001 without an Evil to fight against. During this period, the US was looking for an enemy, but didn't find one as satisfying as the USSR. First, Saddam was the Evil, then there was some searching among usual "bad" countries (Somalia, Sudan, Lybia etc.). Then Milosevic was the villain of the world, and after his defeat, another search happened again (I remember the news Networks were more hostile to France than ever at this time). Saddam got hit once during the LEvinsky affair (and the US/UK are currently still bombing it).
Sept 11. gave a long lasting, big enemy. And sadly, the US reacted the old way : rather than trying to understand why, and change its diplomatic ways, it charged and charges again, using Sept 11. as a legitimation machine.
Please tell me of any period when you feeled the News Networks and the Politicians didn't talk bad of one particular country, or of one particular foreign leader. |
I think you are wrong here. The competing foreign policies at that time were Clinton's vaguely Wilsonian policy, and the conservative foreign policy which strove to reduce the U.S. involvement (at least militarily) in most corners of the world, including opposition to Nato expansion and intervention in the Balkan wars. Take a good look at your own press and compare it to ours. I think you will find a lot more criticism of the U.S. in the European press than vice versa. I also think that you will find that most of the impetus for the intervention in the Balkan wars came from Europe, with the few Americans who were strong supporters seeming to mainly reside at the White House.
The intervention in Somalia was driven largely by Bill Clinton himself during his first campaign for office, and in reaction Bush put together the intervention to supply food. The later dithering and bloody battle stage was all Clinton, and the American people were mildly against it until it got really bad, at which point they were strongly against it. At no time however was there an effective propoganda campaign to support this conflict, or for that matter the intervention in Kosovo. These things played out on their own merits. Somalia was abandoned, while Kosovo was "liberated", though it could have gone the other way had there been any military setbacks of note.
Any mention of Sadam Hussein should only be noted in the context of the un-enforced conditions of the armistace after the Gulf War and the attempted assasination of former President Bush. In other words it was merely a continuation of the Gulf War, and not a seperate policy decision which required a new explanation / debate / decision. Another war cropped up during this period, which was the war between the U.S. and al Qaida. This was inconvenient for the Clinton administration, and allowed to fester until the American public began to get upset about the continual attacks. Too late the hero Clinton began to put some resources on the problem late in his administration, though GW Bush reaped most of the benefits after 9/11.
You are also wrong about the U.S. health care (in a previous post). We put together a system of hospitals many years ago that were an amalgom of Community, Religious and Private institutions. I work at a community hospital. We never turn away anyone from our door regardless of whether they can pay or not, even if they owe us money already we still treat them. Half of all the money we bill we do not ever collect. There is socialized medicine in the U.S., but it is cost inefficient. The up side of this situation is that you can get very good health care here, in a customer oriented fashion rather than a bureacratic one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-01-2003 15:08
Illusion? Why is it an illusion? Do we not set our own laws and policies that often run counter to what the Americans want and do?
|