Subject:
|
Re: Why us? and if us, why this way?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:23:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
845 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > The American people are not naifs who yearn for isolationism, but they are
> > > starting to ask some hard questions about the way we have been doing
> > > business for 50 years, and it may well be time to grant the French,
> > > Canadians, Germans, Turks, South Koreans, and a host of others their wishes
> > > for independence from us: polite friendship — but no alliances, no bases, no
> > > money, no trade concessions, and no more begging for the privilege of
> > > protecting them."
> >
> > Canada is in this list?
> >
> > This is why I disdain American political hacks (of course I distain Canadian
> > political hacks as well... ;) ).
> >
> > I don't recall Canada ever 'begging' protection from the US.
>
> Nor do I. Canada has been a staunch friend of the US far more often than not.
Thanks Larry--my apologies for being abrupt.
>
> > I don't recall
> > Canada ever 'begging' for trade concessions, and American bases in Canada?
>
> Here I think you may want to check your recollection better. Who mans the DEW?
DEW? Most times I love acronyms...
>
> > Hack
>
> I'd not be so dismissive so quickly. His arguments are sound, they're just
> supporting the wrong conclusion (that this time, this war is justified. It's
> not).
>
> Long term, to avoid making more messes and getting into more situations
> where the enslaver of Tibet gets to tell us how to organise our moral
> affairs, we need to take the advice given. Move away from the UN, move away
> from NATO, move away from the EU and stop trying to solve everything.
To this I agree--throwing our hats into the same ring as those who commit
atrocities is the wrong thing to do.
But here we sit in the 21st centruy, in which what affects one of us,
should, and probably will, affect all of us. I think, pretty much, this is
my bottom line--what goes on in your back yard will impact on what's going
to happen in my back yard.
So the US doesn't want to be part of the International Court, doesn't want
to be part of Kyoto, doesn't want to work in the framework of NATO or the
UN. It is America's right to do such. That said, if you don't want to
share in the responsibility of international politics, you then cannot take
part in any international resolutions--the US cannot take unilateral (read
'force of the willing) action where a UN resolution, or any other
international issue, is concerned. If so, then get out of Israel, Kuwait,
Cuba, wherever else you may have forces 'protecting American interests'...
Then again, I just restated your position.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why us? and if us, why this way?
|
| (...) Distant Early Warning. The network of radar bases in Alaska and Canada's far north intended to give the earliest possible terrestrial warning of incoming transpolar missile attack targeted at either the US or Canada. Not the most critical (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why us? and if us, why this way?
|
| (...) Nor do I. Canada has been a staunch friend of the US far more often than not. (...) Here I think you may want to check your recollection better. Who mans the DEW? (...) I'd not be so dismissive so quickly. His arguments are sound, they're just (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
