PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Absolute Failure



Slow
06-20-2009, 01:43 PM
"Across a broad swath of the political spectrum--including just about everyone, really, except the far Left, slavish Obamaphiles and the sinister Ron Paul--a consensus has developed that Barack Obama was wrong-footed by the Iranian election and the ensuing revolt in that country. True, Obama's most devoted followers are still covering for him, like the Associated Press: "Obama holds to measured course on unrest in Iran." But most Americans think that Obama has let us, and freedom-loving Iranians, down.

Charles Krauthammer issued the most stinging critique I've seen so far. You should read it all; here are a few excerpts:

Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters. ...

[T]his incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited. ...

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. ...

Each new day brings reminders that it shouldn't be difficult to choose between the thugs who rule Iran and their subjects."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023849.php

Absolutely inexcusable that the 'leader of the free world' just sits idly by while this happens. He should be supporting the Iranian peoples' right to assemble and protest. Instead, he does and says little, in effect throwing support behind the corrupt and terrorist-supporting Iranian government.

This doesn't have to have a military component. Words and concrete support can do the job. Just look at how Reagan handled the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Barack Obama is a complete and utter failure in this instance.

Huggy85
06-20-2009, 02:50 PM
On the bright side, at least his choice (Christina Romer, UC Berkely macroeconomist) for Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers should be able to count to 15.

http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/media/blogs/Statistics/NewsweekChrisinaRomer.jpg

Westender 3
06-20-2009, 03:18 PM
Will the Conservatives Please Attempt An Argument?

President Obama has taken a cautious tone toward the demonstrators in Iran, with his stated reason being that more open support would discredit their cause. This strikes me as a sensible position. The revealed preferences of both sides suggest a mutual belief that an American embrace would hurt the protestors. The regime is trying (so far, without much success) to tie the demonstrators to the U.S., and the demonstrators are embracing the symbolism of the Iranian revolution (the color green, chants of "Alluah Akbar," and so on) in order to demonstrate their patriotism and mainstream cultural status.

Still, this kind of judgment about an unfamiliar country's internal politics is just a guess, and it's a rebuttable proposition. What's remarkable to me is that those on the other side refuses to rebut it. Today's Washington Post op-ed page has two more columns lambasting Obama for failing to embrace the demonstrators. Today's offerings are by Charles Krauthammer and Paul Wolfowitz. Neither one of them even mentions, let alone answers, Obama's argument for why embracing the demonstrators would be counterproductive.

I don't understand how you could write a column without ever once addressing the primary argument for the proposition you're arguing against. The low quality of argument on this topic from the right is striking.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/19/will-the-conservatives-please-attempt-an-argument.aspx

See you have to look at the big picture not just the narrow minded wingnut view.

Sorry,apparently there are some wingnuts with brains.

KISSINGER: Well, you know, I was a McCain supporter and — but I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it’s the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision.

Of course, we have to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech, free elections, and I don’t see how President Obama could say less than he has, and even that is considered intolerable meddling. He has, after all, carefully stayed away from saying things that seem to support one side or the other. And I think it was the right thing to do because public support for the opposition would only be used by the — by Ahmadinejad — if I can ever learn his name properly — against Mousavi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meugtwz6r0E&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F2009%2F06%2F 18%2Fkissinger-obama-iran%2F&feature=player_embedded

Westender 3
06-20-2009, 03:26 PM
Just to stir the pot I have to include this famous quote from the assrocket,I mean Hinderaker from Powerline ,

"It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2005/07/011024.php

Priceless.

Slow
06-20-2009, 04:01 PM
Once again, West Ender leaves out this important part...

"Hyperbolic? Well, maybe."

Context, West Enders biggest enemy ;)

Slow
06-20-2009, 05:47 PM
Will the Conservatives Please Attempt An Argument?

President Obama has taken a cautious tone toward the demonstrators in Iran, with his stated reason being that more open support would discredit their cause. This strikes me as a sensible position. The revealed preferences of both sides suggest a mutual belief that an American embrace would hurt the protestors. The regime is trying (so far, without much success) to tie the demonstrators to the U.S., and the demonstrators are embracing the symbolism of the Iranian revolution (the color green, chants of "Alluah Akbar," and so on) in order to demonstrate their patriotism and mainstream cultural status.

Still, this kind of judgment about an unfamiliar country's internal politics is just a guess, and it's a rebuttable proposition. What's remarkable to me is that those on the other side refuses to rebut it. Today's Washington Post op-ed page has two more columns lambasting Obama for failing to embrace the demonstrators. Today's offerings are by Charles Krauthammer and Paul Wolfowitz. Neither one of them even mentions, let alone answers, Obama's argument for why embracing the demonstrators would be counterproductive.

I don't understand how you could write a column without ever once addressing the primary argument for the proposition you're arguing against. The low quality of argument on this topic from the right is striking.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/19/will-the-conservatives-please-attempt-an-argument.aspx

See you have to look at the big picture not just the narrow minded wingnut view.

Sorry,apparently there are some wingnuts with brains.

KISSINGER: Well, you know, I was a McCain supporter and — but I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it’s the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision.

Of course, we have to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech, free elections, and I don’t see how President Obama could say less than he has, and even that is considered intolerable meddling. He has, after all, carefully stayed away from saying things that seem to support one side or the other. And I think it was the right thing to do because public support for the opposition would only be used by the — by Ahmadinejad — if I can ever learn his name properly — against Mousavi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meugtwz6r0E&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F2009%2F06%2F 18%2Fkissinger-obama-iran%2F&feature=player_embedded

Oh, now the Left is all about Kissinger, the very same man they want charged for war crimes during the Vietnam War.

How quaint.

SSMP
06-24-2009, 08:48 AM
I suggest that Slow head to Iran and stand beside their Iranian brethren, if you really think that Americans should be doing more to help then this is your chance.

Barry Morris
06-24-2009, 08:53 AM
I don't recall ANY American government taking any other course in a similar situation.

Makes me wonder how Hamas won a democratic election.

Slow
06-24-2009, 09:47 AM
I suggest that Slow head to Iran and stand beside their Iranian brethren, if you really think that Americans should be doing more to help then this is your chance.

And as a typical Canadian, you just stand right there and let someone else do all the heavy lifting, okey dokey?? ;)

How's one inane comment for another?

Your premise is ridiculous. Because I'm not in Iran right now means I have no right to criticize a government's actions?

Does that mean if you're not walking to work everyday then you have no right to have an opinion one way or another on global warming?

DoubleXL
06-24-2009, 10:19 AM
Slow your responses have been lame for a long time. Just stop, ok? I was going to say stop trying, but obviously making an attempt is beyond your abilities at this point.

You will still be shooting Obama down even after he saves your country. Shame really, as you have never even met the man, or spoken with him, yet you feel that you can shoot him down without giving him a chance. Sad really.

Slow
06-24-2009, 10:36 AM
Slow your responses have been lame for a long time. Just stop, ok? I was going to say stop trying, but obviously making an attempt is beyond your abilities at this point.

You will still be shooting Obama down even after he saves your country. Shame really, as you have never even met the man, or spoken with him, yet you feel that you can shoot him down without giving him a chance. Sad really.

Did you ever, in eight years, criticize Bush?

Slow
06-24-2009, 10:59 AM
Knowing the corner he painted himself into, hardcorex runs away.

Blunt
06-24-2009, 11:47 AM
Personally, I believe Obama is doing the right thing to let Iran solve its own problems. The Bush-style of "spreading freedom....democracy...and justice." is woefully arrogant and ineffective; even with a public crying for change. Let the change be internalized; let countries have their own growing pains.

That being said, the bleeding heart liberals and left wing hippies need to get over Obama; he's nothing special.

GRUMPY
06-24-2009, 11:52 AM
seems some are so quick to jump on a guy who hasn't been on the job a year yet but were all in favor as a bumbling idiot drove their country to economic ruin.

Slow
06-24-2009, 12:14 PM
seems some are so quick to jump on a guy who hasn't been on the job a year yet but were all in favor as a bumbling idiot drove their country to economic ruin.

Again, just one year ago you guys were heralding how great Obama was. Now, it's "Well, Bush did this..."

A sure sign of buyer's remorse.

Slow
06-24-2009, 12:16 PM
Let the change be internalized; let countries have their own growing pains.



Do you feel the people of Iran like their current state? If not, there is nothing wrong with existing democracies helping out. How to discharge that help is up for debate. But the fact they should help is not even a question.

That is, of course, unless you feel that the natural state for man is not freedom, but servitude and elitist coercion.

Hans
06-24-2009, 12:57 PM
Again, just one year ago you guys were heralding how great Obama was. Now, it's "Well, Bush did this..."

A sure sign of buyer's remorse.

We did not buy anything, you on the other hand...

Blunt
06-24-2009, 01:18 PM
Do you feel the people of Iran like their current state? If not, there is nothing wrong with existing democracies helping out.
How to discharge that help is up for debate. But the fact they should help is not even a question.

See, I disagree, I don't believe outside intervention is always the best answer. I don't believe we have to "help", nor do I believe that "helping" is always of any actual benefit to the 'recipients'.

I've read a lot of Gwynne Dyer's books, and wholeheartedly agree with his philosophy that outside intervention almost always creates new problems and compounds existing ones.


That is, of course, unless you feel that the natural state for man is not freedom, but servitude and elitist coercion.

That is not the natural state of man, but that's the state of being that we are all a part of; whether or not we like it or are even conscious of it.

Man as an animal within nature is the natural state, and that is a state that through 'progress' man has alienated himself from. - Northrop Frye

SSMP
06-24-2009, 01:37 PM
And as a typical Canadian, you just stand right there and let someone else do all the heavy lifting, okey dokey.
Your premise is ridiculous. Because I'm not in Iran right now means I have no right to criticize a government's actions?
Typical chickenhawk, wants everyone else to do the dirtywork while they sit on the internet and offer nothing.
Here is your chance, but I guess it is easier to complain without thinking.

Slow
06-24-2009, 04:21 PM
We did not buy anything, you on the other hand...

Sure you did. Canadians were involved in this election like none other. They heralded the great Obama as loud as anyone else.

And, i didn't buy him, rest assured of that ;)

Slow
06-24-2009, 04:21 PM
Typical chickenhawk, wants everyone else to do the dirtywork while they sit on the internet and offer nothing.
Here is your chance, but I guess it is easier to complain without thinking.

Makes no sense.

Care for a second take?

Slow
06-24-2009, 04:24 PM
See, I disagree, I don't believe outside intervention is always the best answer. I don't believe we have to "help", nor do I believe that "helping" is always of any actual benefit to the 'recipients'.

I've read a lot of Gwynne Dyer's books, and wholeheartedly agree with his philosophy that outside intervention almost always creates new problems and compounds existing ones.

That's cool. And I've read other books that contradicted that theory. And so it goes.



[/QUOTE]That is not the natural state of man, but that's the state of being that we are all a part of; whether or not we like it or are even conscious of it.[/QUOTE]

No, we are all not under the same state of being. There is a stark difference between the level of government coercion imposed by, say, North Korea or Iran, and that of people under many western governments.

Blunt
06-24-2009, 05:01 PM
No, we are all not under the same state of being. There is a stark difference between the level of government coercion imposed by, say, North Korea or Iran, and that of people under many western governments.

I did not say that levels of elitist coercion and lack of freedom did not vary along a continuum. I said I believe that we are all subjected to it. I believe that this perceptual continuum is established through our own culturally based filter of reality, and it is further highlighted by our perceived differences in the quality of life enjoyed by ourselves compared to others.

I don't believe our interpretation is entirely accurate; yes, there are oppressive regimes in place who trample what we would consider human rights (don't get me started on the philosophy of human rights ;) )

Being from western culture and the capitalist economy, we look down on governments who do not bestow our "standard" of living upon the citizens they represent, we see things like communism or governments run by religious fanatics as oppressive, controlling, non-egalitarian and stifling.

But, go to Cuba, for every political prisoner or detainee, there's a couple dozen Cuban families who have everything they need, and are living the kind of laid back, minimalist existence that I would like to live.


That is, of course, unless you feel that the natural state for man is not freedom, but servitude and elitist coercion.

Again, I feel the natural state for man has long since disappeared for the majority of humanity. Our natural state is as animals. We pursue constructs and means to avoid nature, generally speaking; not myself of course, you could drop me off in the woods with a rusty knife, a length of rope and a pair of shoes and I'd do fine :)

Slow
06-24-2009, 05:38 PM
"But, go to Cuba, for every political prisoner or detainee, there's a couple dozen Cuban families who have everything they need, and are living the kind of laid back, minimalist existence that I would like to live."

So you are a big fan of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Rights and other assorted 'abstract' principles are really meaningless. What is important is that a majority is happy (whatever the definition of happy may be to them).

Blunt
06-24-2009, 05:48 PM
"But, go to Cuba, for every political prisoner or detainee, there's a couple dozen Cuban families who have everything they need, and are living the kind of laid back, minimalist existence that I would like to live."

So you are a big fan of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Rights and other assorted 'abstract' principles are really meaningless. What is important is that a majority is happy (whatever the definition of happy may be to them).

Well, you addressed one of my points; amongst several... I suppose I'll reply to your lone indulgence.

Where John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are concerned, I'm not familiar with either in particular, but I'm familiar with the philosophical view you've laid out.

I suppose I would say that any abstract principle is meaningless; until the human attaches personal meaning to it.

That seems logical enough.

Slow
06-24-2009, 05:50 PM
Well, you addressed one of my points; amongst several... I suppose I'll reply to your lone indulgence.



Why does every single point need to be addressed? Why can't I agree or disagree with something you said, and leave it at that?

Blunt
06-24-2009, 05:59 PM
Why does every single point need to be addressed? Why can't I agree or disagree with something you said, and leave it at that?

You can, and do! I guess I just expected a bit more indulgence across the spectrum of topics. But 1 point out of 4 or 5 is a start.

Bear in mind, if I were to behave and interpret as you do, I'd say something weird like "Translation: I cannot address the validity of your points, so I will narrowly venture down only one of your avenues of thought."

Well, maybe that was a bit eloquent for you. :)

Huggy85
06-24-2009, 06:03 PM
You can, and do! I guess I just expected a bit more indulgence across the spectrum of topics. But 1 point out of 4 or 5 is a start.

Bear in mind, if I were to behave and interpret as you do, I'd say something weird like "Translation: I cannot address the validity of your points, so I will narrowly venture down only one of your avenues of thought."

Well, maybe that was a bit eloquent for you. :)

nice!

Reckidecky
06-24-2009, 06:51 PM
nice!

I concur.

:-)

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:21 PM
nice!

And he's a Mod no less.

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:24 PM
Who's a Mod?

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:25 PM
Who's a Mod?

See that title below your name, Hans?

I just think it's funny how you do the very things the other Mods warn others against.

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:26 PM
Like what??

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:27 PM
Like what??

Post one word replies with little substance ("nice!"), throw threads off track.

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:29 PM
What on earth are you talking about??
I only posted 1 reply on here, which is on page one of this thread.
I did NOT reply with a one word reply ANYWHERE in this thread.

If you want to claim I did then you will have to post the link to that 1 word reply.

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:29 PM
If this thread melted down into a mud throwing contest of put-downs, then I would expect a Mod to come in and straighten things out.

But you didn't, and don't?

Why?

Because 9 out of 10 times it is someone throwing mud at me (with me obliging back most times), and because it's someone taking a swipe at me, you let it go.

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:30 PM
We did not buy anything, you on the other hand...


Here, I will quote myself.

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:31 PM
Here, I will quote myself.

I correct myself on the one word reply accusation. That was, in fact, Huggy.

And that is patently unfair to you. No one should be so demeaned.

Sorry.

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:31 PM
If this thread melted down into a mud throwing contest of put-downs, then I would expect a Mod to come in and straighten things out.

But you didn't, and don't?

Why?

Because 9 out of 10 times it is someone throwing mud at me (with me obliging back most times), and because it's someone taking a swipe at me, you let it go.

Do you think I sit behind my computer 24 hours a day watching what goes on?
I got here about 10 minutes ago.

And it's not like you don't take swipes at people eh?

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:33 PM
And it's not like you don't take swipes at people eh?

Did you read my reply?

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:33 PM
Which one?

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:34 PM
Do you think I sit behind my computer 24 hours a day watching what goes on?


No, but I'd put money on 20 hours, give or take thirty minutes ;)

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:34 PM
Which one?

"Because 9 out of 10 times it is someone throwing mud at me (with me obliging back most times)"

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:35 PM
12 to 14 hours would be the correct answer to sitting behind a computer.

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:35 PM
"Because 9 out of 10 times it is someone throwing mud at me (with me obliging back most times)"


So when someone says "nice" as a one word reply, it's mud slinging?

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:35 PM
12 to 14 hours would be the correct answer to sitting behind a computer.

Not counting at work, right? ;)

Shanny
06-24-2009, 07:36 PM
And as a typical Canadian, you just stand right there and let someone else do all the heavy lifting, okey dokey?? ;)

How's one inane comment for another?

Your premise is ridiculous. Because I'm not in Iran right now means I have no right to criticize a government's actions?

Does that mean if you're not walking to work everyday then you have no right to have an opinion one way or another on global warming?

We dont wait for anyone to do anything. What we also don't do is use our intelligence agencies to fund groups who intend on changing the power in a given country. you think you americans would have learned something from iran/contra. But here we go again

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:37 PM
So when someone says "nice" as a one word reply, it's mud slinging?

Soonet Rules:


22. Do not post ”empty” or useless responses, such as just ”lol” or ”cool.” Only post responses when you have something to contribute.

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:38 PM
We dont wait for anyone to do anything. What we also don't do is use our intelligence agencies to fund groups who intend on changing the power in a given country.

One, you don't have an intelligence agency.

Two, you don't have an intelligence agency.

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:39 PM
Shanny, that's like me saying, "We Americans don't use our RCMP for law enforcement issues"

The fact Canada has been relatively silent on the issues in Iran does not mean you don't meddle, it means you have internalized your inability to be a major player in world affairs.

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:41 PM
Soonet member agreement :

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use our communities to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, violates any internationally recognized law or otherwise violates The Soonet Bulletin Board System's Community Standards. Vianet Internet Solutions retains the rights to exclusively determine what violates any of the standards or conditions and may make changes to them at its discretion without notice.

Slow
06-24-2009, 07:43 PM
Soonet member agreement :

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use our communities to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, violates any internationally recognized law or otherwise violates The Soonet Bulletin Board System's Community Standards. Vianet Internet Solutions retains the rights to exclusively determine what violates any of the standards or conditions and may make changes to them at its discretion without notice.

So you in essence admit you purposely ignore rule 22, as doing so serves a personal purpose for you.

At least you're honest.

Hans
06-24-2009, 07:45 PM
I am pointing out to you that making statements like "Your premise is ridiculous." and "One, you don't have an intelligence agency." are technically speaking a violation of your member agreement.
So would you like me to act on that, or let it slide?

Huggy85
06-24-2009, 08:05 PM
Soonet Rules:


22. Do not post ”empty” or useless responses, such as just ”lol” or ”cool.” Only post responses when you have something to contribute.

Yeah, I suppose I could go back and edit my one word post......... perhaps to say something like "Nice way to point out how silly slow's constant ducking an argument with 'translations' is".

But I figured just saying "nice" got the message across really well. Seemed like a worthwhile contribution to me as it was.

Besides - I was eating dinner and my hands were full.

Slow
06-24-2009, 08:08 PM
I am pointing out to you that making statements like "Your premise is ridiculous." and "One, you don't have an intelligence agency." are technically speaking a violation of your member agreement.
So would you like me to act on that, or let it slide?

If you do so, you'll have to act upon the actions of 3/4 of the other people in here. That is the conundrum you find yourself in.

And I wasn't being flippant in saying you do not have an intelligence agency. Relying on the CSIS for anything of substance is like asking Colonel Mustard to solve a real-life murder case.

Slow
06-24-2009, 08:09 PM
Besides - I was eating dinner and my hands were full.

Two hands?? Wow! :)

Slow
06-24-2009, 08:11 PM
"Following World War II, a number of Western nations created foreign secret intelligence agencies, but Canada was not among them. Though occasional debates have arisen in the past, a Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency has never been formed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Foreign_Intelligence_Agency

Huggy85
06-24-2009, 08:11 PM
Two hands?? Wow! :)

Yes, I typically use them both. One holds the fork - the other the knife. Works rather well.

Slow
06-24-2009, 08:12 PM
Yes, I typically use them both. One holds the fork - the other the knife. Works rather well.

The family must appreciate the fact you're in front of a computer screen. That must work rather well, too. ;)

Huggy85
06-24-2009, 08:13 PM
The family must appreciate the fact you're in front of a computer screen. That must work rather well, too. ;)

Eating in the den, home alone today. Who's going to care? You????

LOL

Slow
06-24-2009, 08:16 PM
Eating in the den, home alone today. Who's going to care? You????

LOL

I do worry when you're alone.

Blunt
06-24-2009, 09:04 PM
Relying on the CSIS for anything of substance is like asking Colonel Mustard to solve a real-life murder case.

Hahaha, that euphemism was fantastic! :thumbs_up:

Shanny
06-25-2009, 03:50 PM
"Following World War II, a number of Western nations created foreign secret intelligence agencies, but Canada was not among them. Though occasional debates have arisen in the past, a Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency has never been formed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Foreign_Intelligence_Agency

because we don't go around spying on other countries we go there when asked and help.

Slow
06-25-2009, 08:12 PM
because we don't go around spying on other countries we go there when asked and help.

Translation: "It sucks an American had to tell me we actually do not have an intelligence agency"

Shanny
06-25-2009, 11:21 PM
lol Even when your wrong your a jackass. I was in the military for 10 years,I think I know a little more about how our military and intelligence works in Canada. Our intelligence is geared towards the inside for the safety of our country. NOT at undermining other countries. Seems being Canadian I know ALOT more about the politics and intelligence (if you can call it that) of your country than you do.

Hrmmm lets see,
Cia funded

Communist states 1945-1989
Iran 1953
Italy 1953-1980s
Guatemala 1954
Cuba 1959-
Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960
Iraq 1963
Brazil 1964
Greece 1967
Iraq 1968
Chile 1973
Afghanistan 1973-74
Argentina 1976
Afghanistan 1978-1980s
Iran 1980
Turkey 1980
Nicaragua 1981-1990


Now lets just looks at those. ALL the places you have bad relations with. As put before if your country would have kept their GOD DAMN nose out of these countries you wouldnt have the problem you have now




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

Slow
06-28-2009, 04:43 PM
Geez, Shanny, is that supposed to be a defense of the fact you thought you had an intelligence agency, and found out from me you in fact did not?

Hey, I know it must be tough, having an American teach you about your country. I know it's not easy to have someone rip away the veil of an alternate reality some of you have so painstakingly constructed for all these years.

But it is what it is. You don't have a foreign intelligence agency. Period. End of story.

And the reason you don't have on has nothing to do with altruistic reasons that make the world sigh in blushing admiration of Canada: it has to do with the fact that when it comes to foreign policy issues, Canada is basically a eunuch, for good or ill, better or worse.

Barry Morris
06-28-2009, 05:29 PM
Gee, eunuch or rapist?? Canada may be the first, but the USA is certainly the second.

Slow
06-28-2009, 05:39 PM
Source? Links??

dancingqueen
06-28-2009, 05:53 PM
I love the "holier than thou" attitude so many Canadians have about our country... We have a pretty dark history ourselves.
It's debatable who's is worse...

Shanny
06-28-2009, 05:58 PM
Geez, Shanny, is that supposed to be a defense of the fact you thought you had an intelligence agency, and found out from me you in fact did not?

Hey, I know it must be tough, having an American teach you about your country. I know it's not easy to have someone rip away the veil of an alternate reality some of you have so painstakingly constructed for all these years.

But it is what it is. You don't have a foreign intelligence agency. Period. End of story.

And the reason you don't have on has nothing to do with altruistic reasons that make the world sigh in blushing admiration of Canada: it has to do with the fact that when it comes to foreign policy issues, Canada is basically a eunuch, for good or ill, better or worse.

Again all I have to say is our country doesnt meddle in the affiars of other countries like MANY other countries. But for some reason americans seem to think they know more about how a country should be run when your one of the youngest countries in the world

oh just to let you know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Security_Intelligence_Service

Slow
06-28-2009, 05:59 PM
I'm willing to bet most Canadians are like you, DQ, and people like Soundbear are but a loud minority.

No country has a spotless record. All countries have good and bad in their past. Therefore, unless you're directing your venom towards a communist Russia, or North Korea today, or some other country that has totally stepped outside the realm of decent governance, there is little room to be so 'holier than thou' (as you say) when criticizing other countries' past practices.

Sounbear is one of those that still to cling to the fake reality created by a lack of confidence and a sense of inferiority. It seems most Canadians today understand the folly of buying into this mindset, and are able to view the world as it really is, which can be summed up as this: "I'm not perfect; you're not perfect. Let's work together to make things a little better overall."

I'm convinced the future of Canada is represented in your sober mindset, DQ. If it is not, and in fact reflects Soundbear's mindset, then your outlook is bleak indeed.

dancingqueen
06-28-2009, 06:00 PM
Again all I have to say is our country doesnt meddle in the affiars of other countries like MANY other countries.

ya, we don't... like when we turned the Jews away that where seeking refuge from being cooked by the Nazis....
sometimes getting involved is a good thing.

dancingqueen
06-28-2009, 06:05 PM
I'm willing to bet most Canadians are like you, DQ, and people like Soundbear are but a loud minority.

No country has a spotless record. All countries have good and bad in their past. Therefore, unless you're directing your venom towards a communist Russia, or North Korea today, or some other country that has totally stepped outside the realm of decent governance, there is little room to be so 'holier than thou' (as you say) when criticizing other countries' past practices.

Sounbear is one of those that still to cling to the fake reality created by a lack of confidence and a sense of inferiority. It seems most Canadians today understand the folly of buying into this mindset, and are able to view the world as it really is, which can be summed up as this: "I'm not perfect; you're not perfect. Let's work together to make things a little better overall."

I'm convinced the future of Canada is represented in your sober mindset, DQ. If it is not, and in fact reflects Soundbear's mindset, then your outlook is bleak indeed.

Just from people I talk to and know (Not very representational I know) This attitude is dominant. I am curious to know Canada's opinion of our history compared to yours, perhaps there has been a study, I'll have to look that up. Maybe I see this as the general attitude has something to do with living in a small border town. I hope the general population is not so arrogant as to think we are so spotless.

Slow
06-28-2009, 06:06 PM
Again all I have to say is our country doesnt meddle in the affiars of other countries like MANY other countries. But for some reason americans seem to think they know more about how a country should be run when your one of the youngest countries in the world

oh just to let you know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Security_Intelligence_Service

You're missing the point, Shanny.

First of all, even if Canada wanted to, it could not engage in a foreign policy that combines words that are backed up by power. It simply cannot be done, no more than Iceland could do it. In fact, most countries can do no such thing. Out of the 160-some countries in the world, maybe a dozen or so can back up their foreign policy with power, if the need arises. So don't waste time patting yourself on the back for something you are not doing. You're not doing that very thing out of impotence, not some wonderful altruism, as I said earlier.

Secondly, your country's silence in some events has meant, by proxy, that you've supported questionable regimes and political motives over the years. Your words are limited in their effectiveness; but still, to say nothing is seen as the same thing as granting grudging approval.

Slow
06-28-2009, 06:09 PM
Just from people I talk to and know (Not very representational I know) This attitude is dominant. I am curious to know Canada's opinion of our history compared to yours, perhaps there has been a study, I'll have to look that up. Maybe I see this as the general attitude has something to do with living in a small border town. I hope the general population is not so arrogant as to think we are so spotless.

I think eastern Canada is disproportionally represented by Canadians with the fake reality view of things. Southern Ontario is very arrogant and elitist. This is no doubt influenced by being so close to the U.S. and feeling a sense of inferiority, or something along those lines, just to the massive size of the U.S. But this seems balanced by the more sober-minded views of middle and western-Canada.

Shanny
06-28-2009, 06:18 PM
You're missing the point, Shanny.

First of all, even if Canada wanted to, it could not engage in a foreign policy that combines words that are backed up by power. It simply cannot be done, no more than Iceland could do it. In fact, most countries can do no such thing. Out of the 160-some countries in the world, maybe a dozen or so can back up their foreign policy with power, if the need arises. So don't waste time patting yourself on the back for something you are not doing. You're not doing that very thing out of impotence, not some wonderful altruism, as I said earlier.

Secondly, your country's silence in some events has meant, by proxy, that you've supported questionable regimes and political motives over the years. Your words are limited in their effectiveness; but still, to say nothing is seen as the same thing as granting grudging approval.

LOL, man your diluted. If your think foreign policy means my bombs are bigger than your bombs you are exactely the reason why your country is doomed to fail.

Do you not think at anytime if china decided to bankrupt you financially your country would be doomed without firing one shot.

your countries vision of foreign affairs is to pick on countries they know are not going to fight back. The reason why you are totally limp with north korea.

Slow
06-28-2009, 06:22 PM
Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world when we went in there in 2003. Sure seems like they could have fought back, if we actually gave them that option. We stood face to face against Russia, the largest military in the world, for forty years during the Cold War, in part to keep countries like Canada safe. And we never asked ungrateful whiners like you for a cent. Not once.

And, sometimes foreign policy needs to be backed up by force. It is how the world works. It is how it has worked for thousands of years.

China is a paper tiger, and will fail. The fact is, the US will remain the world's lone super power for a long, long time to come. And while that may drive you insane with jealousy, deep down even you know that is the best scenario out there.

Shanny
06-28-2009, 06:33 PM
Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world when we went in there in 2003. Sure seems like they could have fought back, if we actually gave them that option. We stood face to face against Russia, the largest military in the world, for forty years during the Cold War, in part to keep countries like Canada safe. And we never asked ungrateful whiners like you for a cent. Not once.

And, sometimes foreign policy needs to be backed up by force. It is how the world works. It is how it has worked for thousands of years.

China is a paper tiger, and will fail. The fact is, the US will remain the world's lone super power for a long, long time to come. And while that may drive you insane with jealousy, deep down even you know that is the best scenario out there.

Were you waving an american flag when you wrote that. I'm not jealous of anything in the US but the price of beer and maybe that Ron Paul isn't a politician here.

Slow
06-28-2009, 06:37 PM
Your past words show the folly for such a statement, Shanny. Envious Canadians all act the same, and you're from that cookie cutter, unfortunately.

But you're obviously quite angry now. It's best to just let this thing rest.

Shanny
06-28-2009, 06:39 PM
I dont get angry reading posts on an internet site. I just feel pity for you.

You are that full of government propaganda that you dont see the forest for the trees.

Slow
06-28-2009, 06:41 PM
I dont get angry reading posts on an internet site. I just feel pity for you that your are that full of government propaganda that you dont see the forest for the trees.

You're angry and agitated over the fact I knew more about your foreign intelligence service (or lack thereof) than you did.

It's understandable. Let's let this thing rest.

Shanny
06-28-2009, 06:45 PM
LOL do you need a hug or something. Why don't you crack a beer, go out in your yard and shot something. It will calm you down.

Slow
06-28-2009, 06:46 PM
go out in your yard and shot something.

Priceless. Simply priceless.

Have a good night, Shanny! :) :)

Shanny
06-28-2009, 06:56 PM
Spelling mistakes...............We had another guy with no witty comments who resorted to this tactic too. He doesnt post here anymore.

Barry Morris
06-28-2009, 07:36 PM
Sure he does.

Slow
06-29-2009, 08:46 AM
Sure he does.

LOL...mea culpa!! :)