Canada's View on Social Issues Is Opening Rifts With the U.S. - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-11-2003, 11:58 PM   #31
LCK
Acrobat
 
LCK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 408
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Hi, I'm a little late to this discussion but I'd like to add my two cents in:

Yes, in many ways I think my country (Canada) is good and decent, but I also have many criticisms. As a member of Amnesty International I have dealt with atrocities concerning my own country (as pertaining to the First Nations people). Our universal healthcare system is ideal in theory but in practise it is often two-tiered. Money still talks.

Our global reputation as a peaceful nation has been bought with the blood of others. Though we have our own war heroes here as well, the truth is that Canada can afford its liberal stance and low budget for civil defense bcause we can depend on the UK and / or the US to come to our defense should need be, like the little kid in the playground who can always speak his mind without ever having to fight cause he has big brothers....

One quote in the article: "After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she said, an old roommate told her that "the U.S. deserved 9/11 because we're bullies." " is awful to hear. I can assure you that such a heartless comment is not typical of Canadians. Literally everyone I know, or have read in newspapers etc, considers 9/11 an UNPROVOKED terrorist attack.

I don't think there are true divides btw Canadians and Americans. For every issue presented, you can find ppl from both countries for or against something. Seems to me the main purpose of this article is to create such a divide and to stir up bad feelings.
__________________

__________________
LCK is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 07:15 AM   #32
War Child
 
Katey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 719
Local Time: 01:26 AM
well said!!
__________________

__________________
Katey is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 10:57 AM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
It is my hope that their merger with the Progressive Conservatives shoves out the extremists that have dogged the Canadian Alliance since its inception (Stockwell Day, anyone?), but I fear that, instead, the reasonable conservatives within the PCs will flee, and all that will be left is some form of American-style intolerant social conservatism.

Melon
unfortunately melon the latter scenario will take course and the defections have already begun.
brison shouldnt really be in the liberal party. he is fiscally conservative and has never sought a 'gay MP' billing, though he is openly gay. he simply wants to acknowledge the fact and then cut some taxes. i guess if there is a liberal govt he can live within, it is martin's in that sense.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 09:26 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


This is one of the most interesting interpretations I have ever read of this event. Any chance you have a single link to back this up? The part I put in bold that is........
Didn't think so
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 11:42 PM   #35
War Child
 
Katey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 719
Local Time: 01:26 AM
Quote:
On Thursday, U.S. ships in the Red and Arabian seas fired dozens of cruise missiles at targets in Sudan and Afghanistan which the United States said were terrorist sites linked to Osama bin Laden, an Afghanistan-based Muslim militant suspected of financing and organizing this month's bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. More than 260 Americans, Kenyans and Tanzanians were killed in the embassy attacks, and more than 5,000 were wounded.

The U.S. Thursday attacked a plant in Sudan which Washington said was producing chemical weapons and an alleged terrorist training complex in eastern Afghanistan, near the border with Pakistan. The plant was actually produced about half of the medicine in Sudan includinh HIV AIDS drugs

The United Nations on Friday said the plant had provided medicine to Iraq under a U.N. program allowing Baghdad to buy food and medicine with oil proceeds.

'President Bill Clinton knew he was bombing a civilian target when he ordered the US attack on a Sudan chemical plant. Tests ordered by him showed that no nerve gas was on the site and two British professionals who recently worked at the factory said it clearly had no military purpose.' The Observer London England

"Since the attack occurred, the Sudanese government has called upon the United Nations or any other authoritative agency to send a qualified technical team to investigate the nature of the facility. Despite early American reluctance to support this request, this is something that now needs to be done."
--STATEMENT FROM JIMMY CARTER ON INVESTIGATING THE BOMBING OF SUDANESE FACTORY

The New York Times questions the attack ...
... within days of the attack, some of the administration's explanations for destroying the factory in Sudan proved inaccurate. Many people inside and outside the U.S. government began to ask whether questionable intelligence had prompted the United States to blow up the wrong building.
Senior administration officials concede that they made inaccurate statements about the plant on Aug. 20 and did a poor job of publicly stating their case against the factory.

"We were not accurate," a senior administration official said. "That was a mistake."

If it turns out the U.S. military attacks resulted in civilian casualties, which of the following statements would come closer to your view:

Civilian casualties are regrettable but the U.S. was right to attack, or,

The U.S. should not have attacked unless it was certain there would be no civilian casualties.

U.S. right to attack 65%

Should not have attacked
unless it was certain there
would be no civilian casualties 27

In the immediate wake of the U.S. missile attacks against terrorist
facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan, most Americans approve of the
attacks stating they were needed for national security Among those
with a definite opinion (61% of the public), five out of six express
approval of the U.S. military strikes

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world...ack-sudan.html
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808...trikes.follow/
__________________
Katey is offline  
Old 12-12-2003, 11:55 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Am I having trouble communicating? I highlighted in BOLD exactly what you said which was innacurate.

[Q]Like in 1998, when there was a terrorist attack against Americans in Africa, the American ppl demanded that someone be punished[/Q]

Now you post an article that does not back up YOUR STATEMENT.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 12:00 AM   #37
War Child
 
Katey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 719
Local Time: 01:26 AM
p.s it is partly humane nature to react and want to get back atthe people who do wrong to us.. If you look into there was strong public support to attack terrorist sites in Sudan at the time. Just as there was strong public support after 9/11. Not saying that there should or should not have been just stating . Prove me wrong on that and I will be happy to admit I am wrong.

People are quick to anger.. less quick to forgive.. me included
__________________
Katey is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 12:01 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:26 AM
I am well versed on this event...do not need any info on this situation having typed on it a few times in this forum. But to say the American People demanded someone be punished is

Many Americans, myself included were horrified that the president, AGAINST the advice of MILITARY ADVISORS launched the attack. Now why did he do this? It had nothing to do with the American people. Check your dates Katey. I do believe that the missles were launched the day the court deposition tapes were released showing the President say that depends on what the "definition of "is"is".

That was a pretty insulting post.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 12:10 AM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Read the Bottom of the CNN article.....

Bill Gertz, in Breakdown writes extensively about how the Navy argued against the strikes if my memory serves me correctly, and if I am not mistaken, and I may be having faulty memory, one Admiral was threatened with being courtmartialed or with being relieved of command because he did not want to launch the missles into the factory. He argued that the factory was not even on their intel lists.....if I have not given the book out of my library I will try and PM you the quotes if I can find it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 12:32 AM   #40
War Child
 
Katey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 719
Local Time: 01:26 AM
no insult intended towards americans in anyways.. my intent purely to state that the defense that was used among some Bill Clinton supporters.. perhaps I stated that wrong .. my apologies..

I will not further debate the history of this event.. it is irrelevant at this point .. I am sure many Americans were discusted by Clintons actions..


I am just going to say this and take it with a grain of salt please becasue I know Americans inthe case as well did not support his move . It is not to be offensive and I am in no way comparing the two

"The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold."
("Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S Truman, 1945", pg. 197).

On Aug. 9, after Nagasaki was a-bombed, Truman made another public statement on why the atomic bombs were used:

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."
("Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S Truman, 1945", pg. 212).


I respect you opinions greatly you are well versed and I admire that.. I respect the right of people to have opinions

Relax I am not attacking you or the US
__________________
Katey is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 12:35 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Katey
no insult intended towards americans in anyways.. my intent purely to state that the defense that was used among some Bill Clinton supporters.. Relax I am not attacking you or the US
None taken.......

I was infurated the day the missles were launched. It makes my blood boil.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 12:38 AM   #42
War Child
 
Katey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 719
Local Time: 01:26 AM
sorry to bring up old feelings.. but glad you feel that way..
Cheers
__________________
Katey is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 02:47 AM   #43
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 09:26 PM
Just thought I'd share some thoughts...

It's absolutely amazing how just about any thread in FYM will result in discussion (aka, thread hijacking) about war, military, etc.... OR someone trying to blame one political party or another.

... and I wonder... don't those same people (that hijack the topics) ever get tired of trying to hammer their own views into others?


My point.....?

Last time I checked, the subject of this thread mentioned "Canada's View on Social Issues", not "Canada's View on political/military Issues".

__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 08:06 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:26 PM
Canada has nice ppl sure but Canada is has such a large void of intelleual stimuli, so for ppl thinking their social policies have superiorty over the USA's makes one giggle.

Canada reminds me of a beauitifully large,dependent dysfunctional child.

Oh Canada we love you so.

As far as topics segwaying into other topics, I dont see that as one person hijacking a thread.
Sure protocol dictates one should stick to a topic however as conversations evolve.. sometimes so do threads...

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-13-2003, 08:40 AM   #45
War Child
 
Katey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 719
Local Time: 01:26 AM
thanks for the topics evolve part .. but man whats going on with the constant disrespect for Canada.. I have some issues with the US Governemnt but i have them with Canada's as well . I have a great deal of respest for Americans and the values they represent
__________________

__________________
Katey is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com