Subject:
|
Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:17:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
220 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
> > How about something new and radical for y'all--think something thru instead
> > of being 'reactionary' all the time.
>
> There are times when being "reactionary" is the only way to prevent great
> evil. Think how much bloodshed and oppression could have been prevented if the
> US had been more "reactionary" at the start of WWII instead of sitting back and
> waiting until large parts of Europe and Asia had been devastated by Axis forces,
> and only getting involved when we'd been attacked on our home soil.
I'm being preciosist here, but what exactly was the status of Hawaii in 1941?
AFAIK it only became a state in 1959, and until the late 1800's it was a
kingdom. Honest, I got curious when I read this! :-)
> > "Look how great we are because we're always reacting to everything! We
> > reacted to the damn Brits and had our little 'revolution'! Look how great
> > that was and look how great we are now!"
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we the only 1st-world free democratic
> one-time-British-colony that isn't required by law to put the Queen's face on
> our currency? Last time I checked, Elizabeth is still Canada's official
> head-of-state, while the US owes no fealty to any royalty. Canada sought to be
> the equal of the UK. The US sought to be greater.
You may be wrong. The Republic of Ireland does not have the Queen's face on
their Euros...
(I say "may" because it is arguable that Ireland was at any point a colony, at
least in the traditional sense of the word)
Then there is Hong-Kong, I honestly don't know what is on their present
currency. And Singapore. And Malta. And Cyprus.
I withdraw the "may".
> What makes the US great is not what we've done in the past, but what we're
> willing and capable of doing in the present. No single nation comes close to
> providing the level of humanitarian and economic aid that the US provides each
> year. And the mere existence of the US military is probably one of the biggest
> peace-keeping measures in the world. Do you think India and Pakistan would care
> if Canada came alone and told them not to pursue nuclear weapons programs?
> Probably not one tiny bit, without a UN mandate to back you up. The US,
> however, is the world's last superpower, and the world knows we'll step up to
> the plate even without a UN mandate, if the situation warrants it.
Are you saying the US will intervene in a hipothetical nuclear conflict between
India and Pakistan? Wouldn't that be... suicidal?
> Is it the
> best system? Certainly not, but when UN Security Council member nations can be
> bribed by petty thug dictators to veto the enforcement of mandates against them,
> can you honestly say that the UN is?
The UN is not perfect, I agree with you. Far from perfect. But it is the only
thing in the way of "bully-diplomacy", or "jungle rules" if you prefer.
And about the bribes... check the aid Angola (and others, for that matter) would
receive for voting favourably the US intervention in Iraq, *had it gone to
vote*. Bribery is NOT an exclusive of petty thug dictators.
> > Well, a few other countries that were under the "tyranny" of the Brits have
> > virtually the same 'democracy' and captialism as y'all, and they are, as far
> > as I'm concerned, better off.
>
> Very few. How about India and Pakistan? Or Ireland? How about Scotland,
> which not only isn't free, but also hasn't been allowed to fly its own national
> flag for centuries?
???
Check the Scotish National Rugby team playing at home... then look for those
flags.
(as sidenote, a quote from Trainspotting: "We Scots are pretty *** dumb to let
ourselves be colonized by those *** english... we could have at least have been
colonised by a decent nation!")
> Maybe you'd like to look to most of Africa?
If you look carefully, you'll find that the former British colonies are the most
stable of African nations. Coincidence?
> Perhaps you'd
> like to reexamine Australia's oppression of the Australian Aborigines and Torres
> Strait Islanders (which was fully in effect a few decades ago), or New Zealand's
> oppression of the Maori tribes? Both of these British ex-colonies have
> sponsored oppressive measures that rivaled (and perhaps exceeded) anything that
> the US did to the Native American peoples, and they continued to do so for far
> longer than the US did.
Arguable as argument: these countries began doing it far *after* the US began,
and in a less bloody fashion. Surprise: they were also the first to begin
reverting such policies *with visible action*.
> Perhaps you're forgetting that Israel/Palestine, Iraq,
> Kuwait, Egypt, and Afghanistan are all former British colonies?
Not Afghanistan (which was the most clamorous British defeat in the 19th century
expansion).
As for Palestine and Iraq, these were Bitish *mandates*: they were occupied
after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and I dare to say the British soon wanted
to grant them independance (Iraq, 1936; Palestine postponed due to WW2). The
British influence in these territories was much weaker than in India or East
Africa.
> And perhaps you're forgetting that in 1837, Canada _did_ try to forcibly
> gain independance from Britain...and failed. Or that in 1840 they were given a
> limited self-government, the denial of which is the main reason why the US
> ousted the British from New England. Have you considered the possibility that
> as they moved towards giving Canada nominal freedom in 1867, they might have
> been thinking of how costly it was to refuse to give America its freedom a
> century earlier?
Hardly. The Brits wanted instead to "get rid" of Quebec in a neat fashion... so
they passed the ball. And in the process, they turned from Quebec's greatest
threat (1840, Act of Union) to its greatest guarantee of national identity...
:-)
> > I'd rather live in Austrailia or, well, hey how 'bout where I live now-
> > Canada, than live in the US--my life expectancy is longer, my health care is
> > better, and I have less chance of getting shot.
>
> Your health _insurance_ is universal. Our health _care_ is the best in the
> world. There's a reason why rich people come here from countries that have
> universal health insurance when they need major surgery performed.
(Not-so-rich people go to Cuba, and even get a discount... :-)
> You can
> either provide excellent health care to most of the population, or adequate
> health care to all of the population, but you can't provide excellent health
> care to everyone without the system breaking down for one reason or another.
> It's just too expensive.
So what, it should not even be attempted? Defeatism, coming from an american?
> Speaking as someone who has good health insurance, I'd
> prefer to stick with the US plan so my health care doesn't get diluted. Yes,
> it's a bit self-centered, but very few people do very few things for purely
> altruistic reasons.
Agreed, very few people do so.
Now, assuming for a second that you're a Christian: isn't that the lamest
argument, "others don't help so I don't have to do it either"?
Heck, if there's anything from christian ethics that I identify with, it is
solidarity!
> Oh yeah, and our dollar is bigger. And we don't have to have laws imposing
> quotas on what percentage of songs played on the radio have to be from native
> groups just so they can get some airtime. And have you ever stopped to think
> about why our two countries share the world's longest unpatrolled border? It's
> because we don't see you as a threat and you don't want us to change our minds.
You don't want them to change their minds either. Remember the amount of radars
and airbases the US have access to in Canada...
> > We will continue to grow and be proactive. The best you can possibly aspire
> > to is to be reactive.
>
> And we will continue to shelter you with our military presence so you can
> spend money on universal health insurance instead of wartoys and continue to
> pretend that you'd be better off without us. After all, the potential gains of
> launching a war on Canadian soil are positively dwarfed by the fact that you
> sleep next to the biggest dog on the block.
In sequence with the preceding paragraph, what if Canadians one day grow fed up
of this paternalistic approach? What will the US do then? I can imagine the
Canadians pretty much relaxed, since *they* don't have any enemies...
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
| (...) Hawaii was a US territory during WWII, just like Puerto Rico is now. Unlike Puerto Rico, Hawaii had been seeking to become a State back in 1903, with Congress finally giving full consideration to the issue in the 1930's, well before WWII (...) (21 years ago, 7-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
| (...) Hm, yeah, like freedom? Gosh-darn those silly Yanks and their ill-conceived idea that the world should be free of oppression... (...) There are times when being "reactionary" is the only way to prevent great evil. Think how much bloodshed and (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
26 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
|
|
|
|
