American Military Occupation...In CANADA?

[Proudfoots]

head's up everyone, it's 1812 all over again, but this time the US troops are coming in and the government is cheering...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and anger a lot of people.

The United States is the new Rome, an expansionistic empire that rules the world today, controlling our economies, cultures and governments.

Yesterday it was Afganistan, today Canada (we have no real military of our own and with US troops on the ground, we have lost our final bit of soveirnty as a nation, and yes, i know all about the Cold WAr, dew line and all that, this is the last straw though, that and the Prime Ministers aid that said Bush was a moron and got fired) i digress.

I am looking for a scholarly debate, I want to see references here, if you have an argument, don't just make it up, make a point, read a book.

Since WW2 the United States has been involved overtly, or covertly in these countries...ALL NATO member countries...

Italy - 1497
Greece - 1947 - 1970s
The Philipines - Pre war and on
Korea - 1945 - now
Albania 1949 - 1953
Germany 1950s
Iran 1953
Guatemala 1953-54
Costa Rica 1954
Syria 1956-57
Israel - always
Indonesia - 1958 (remember Suharto?)
British Guiana 1954-1964
Soviet Union 1960s (the U2 spy plane)
italy - again
Vietnam (probably don't even need to mention this one)
Cambodia - 1955-1973
Laos - 1957-1973
Haiti - 1959-1963
Blum, William (1998). Killing Hope. Black Rose Books

Okay, i think everyone is getting the point here. The US is an empire that is controls the world, and through the Bin Ladin episode, they have gained considerably more control.

I, personaly, don't like the idea
you?

[Ciryaher]

I think you typoed about italy, there.

But I am an American, and I agree that we stick ourselves into too many people's businesses. Now when it comes to keeping innocent people from getting terrorized, medical help, and financial and food aid, I think that we have a duty to help other nations, but we shouldn't do anything like occupying (in the case of people being terrorized, it should be done as a NATO/UN operation).

Unfortunately there is too strong a majority that thinks that we have a duty to be in everyone's business, and the minority that thinks like myself is just that, a minority. The unfortunate side effect of a republic/democracy is that the illogical mob has the most say, usually; and other times it is the conniving elitists.

[Asha'man]

I agree that we do stick our collective nose in the affairs of a lot of countries, but it's not all bad. Have you heard the tribute to how the U.S. has helped lots of countries but never gets any help or respect in return? Written by a Canadian, no less. Do a Google for it, I think it was a radio bit originally.

Ash

[Proudfoots]

yup, read it. And he was Canadian, doesn't mean a thing.

The US does send food and such to a lot of countries, but most of the interventions I am talking about is knocking over democratic regimes to place fascist dictators in power (Suharto, Diem in Vietnam).

It's all about big business, the fighting in Columbia isn't about drugs, its about coffee, Afganistan - oil (taliban was not a good regime), Iraq - well, we'll stay away from Iraq in this thread.

Italy - notoriously corrupt western european nation, it has seen more governments in the last 50 years than years. Always a stronghold for the Communists (who i believe hold a majority right now) and after the war, when the Communists (like Yugoslavia) were the strongest freedom fighters, the communists were making gains in elections. Swinging the 'Marshal Plan' like a club, the US told Italian leaders who would be in their cabinet.

Today, what is happening reminds me of Anchluss, Canada needs defense from terrorists, just like Austria did 60 years ago...

'foots

[Ciryaher]

I don't think Afghanistan is a major oil producer (I'd have to look up the numbers to be sure) but I think we (as a world, because it isn't just the US) did a good thing taking apart the Taliban. The Afghanis formed their own council (the tribal leaders, headed by Karzai) and are doing their best (with global support) to rebuild their country.

And although we're "fighting Iraq for the oil", if we'd go in there and really do something (like arrest Hussein) we'd be ridding the world of a very heartless man who has a nasty record of massacring minorities and assassinating all political dissenters.

[Thorin]

The problem with the US is not just obvious want to control, but the unintentional, well meaning way they involve themselves and not only make more of a mess of things (Vietnam a prime example), but also turn the world against them as a self imposing "rich" nation, bullying others into their "well meaning" agenda.

I was telling my wife last night that Bush is playing on a merry go round that has no stops for him. He wants to get rid of Saddam but the very people who will be able to help him make that possible (i.e. the arab citizens of Iraq and other Islamic countries) already hate America for the above stated reasons. In other words, even though he says he is doing it for the people, it is the very people that will hate him regardless. Saddam could spit on the people, but like always, if it turns to either "we, the Muslim/Arab world against America", they will side with Hussein.

There is no way for America to turn this around in their favor no matter what they do.

As for invading Canada, Bush has no use for Canada. He didn't even know who Chretien was before his election, and when Canada stood up to Bush for not being bullied into deciding against Saddam despite our support against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Bush turned the cold shoulder to us and grabbed on to Tony Blair like a life preserver...We are not a concern to Bush (unless he wants our national resources, then he'll come storming in).

[Proudfoots]

Actually Bush now has Canada, if he wants it or not... check out recent cbc articles or toronto star

As for oil, no, afganistan is not oil rich..really, it is pretty much the armpit of the world, but, there happens to be a pipeline that Cheney wants to build.

As for Iraq, lets not talk about iraq...but since we are (but i would prefer if we could discuss other problems around the world, since 911 is just the most recent excuss)

from the Toronto Star 'War on...' always justifies U.S. actions, Toronto Star Dec.9 Page A23

Re No one taken in by Bush Opinion, Dec.8.

I beg to differ. In the 1980's, during the war on drugs, there was a trial of a DEA officer in which he was videotaped planting evidence on the yacht of a "known" drug kingpin Ft.Lauderdale. To justify his crime, the DEA officer said about 40 per cent of the agency's major convictions were obtained through planted evidence because the bigger drug fish were too smart to get caught.
Afterward, a Florida newspaper conducted a poll asking whether it was acceptable for police to plant evidence in order to catch a "known" drug dealer. An overwhelming majority said, "Yes".
So, the obvious question becomes, given that the war on terror is a much more important element of U.S. society than the war on drugs ever was, and that the political and military stakes on the table have reached enormous proportions, and that 90 per cent of the people in America "know" that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, isn't it likely that somewhere in the long chain of CIA activity some zealous operative has already planted a bit of evidence somewhere within the borders of Iraq?
Any serious student of American history recognizes that U.S. foreign policy rests in the hands of a very few intellectuals who have no reluctance whatsoever to do whatever it takes to accomplish their objectives, including brilliant tricks and ruses.
In the meantime, the rest of us, whose mentality can't relate to the concept of engineering horrific wars for personal and national gain, don't have a clue about what's going on until years afterward. By the time we find out what happened, there is a newly engineered "war on..." to puff up military spending and fulfill the secret foreign policy objectives of the moment.
Bill Simmons, Toronto


Now, we Know that the US likes to mess in other countries business, yesterday it was Panama, they decided that they didn't like Noriega, so they took over the country and put him in jail.. Today it is Iraq
Saddam is a baddy , yes...but who is setting these parameters

There is no control, except for the president. He can pretty much do whatever he wants, yes there are limits to the executive power. But, he is elected to control the united states, not the rest of the world.

I did not elect george w. bush. he should have no say over waht is happening in my country (softwood lumber anyone?), the people in Iraq and Afganistan and Bosnia did not elect him. The people in Panama, Granada, Columbia, Vietnam, the philipines...korea...did not elect him.

'foots

[TheFool]

Originally posted by Proudfoots
today Canada (we have no real military of our own and with US troops on the ground, we have lost our final bit of soveirnty as a nation,
Proudfoots could you clarify what 'US troops on the ground' there are, please, I'm a little confused.

[Proudfoots]

the toronto Star `Dirty' bomber spurred plan for U.S.-Canada security Group to tackle ways to deal with attacks: Graham `If a bomb goes off in Detroit it's going to affect us' OTTAWA—The threat of a radioactive "dirty" bomb in the U.S. prompted Canada to work to create a bi-national planning group that would allow American troops on Canadian soil in the event of a terrorist threat or natural disaster.

Is what i mean.

'foots

[TheFool]

OK. So are you objecting to American troops coming in, or the Canadian government because of what it has 'done' to the Canadian armed forces? How much is Canada itself to blame?

[Ciryaher]

...in the event of a terrorist threat or natural disaster.

We are not IN Canada. We will only be IN Canada in the event of "a terrorist threat or natural disaster."

Canada has taken it's own claws out, and if struck, it would be defenseless. The US has teams trained to deal with these attacks, and they are well funded. I don't see ANY reason why anyone would object to this. If Austria was the subject of a terrorist attack, and Germany had the resources to aid them, would anyone complain? No. All this is, I now see, is the throwing of arms into the air because the US would send personnel up to Canada "in the event of a terrorist threat or natural disaster". Argentina could send Canada military assistance and nobody would complain, it only matters if it's the US doing the assisting.

[Parrot]

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72602,00.html)

Please take special note of this passage:
Under the agreement, either country can request military help from the other. Any American troops operating in Canada would be under the command of a Canadian officer, while any Canadian troops operating south of the border would be under U.S. command.
In what little-known Canadian dialect does this equate to "American Military Occupation"?

[Athelas]

Originally posted by Proudfoots
The United States is the new Rome, an expansionistic empire that rules the world today, controlling our economies, cultures and governments.

I've said as much myself many times. Look at the US symbol: The Eagle. Many Americans, (like me) are descended from Canadians or have Canadian family, and so feel rather protective of Canada in a respectful way. I think the people of both nations are more alike than either would like to admit.

American Imperialism: Well, somebody is always gonna be the big kid on the block. Who would you prefer it be? China? Nobody has the "right" to interfere in the affairs of another nation; that's why we don't consult lawyers before we send in troops. Sometimes we screw up, and sometimes we're heroes. The mistakes are remembered long after the achievements are forgotten.

[Rangerdave]

You know, as I look across the dean at my "I Love Me" display of my awards and decorations. I am reminded that I earned a set of Canadian Paratrooper's wings. I alway thought they had a bit more class than the Army wings.
(see attached photo below)

As for occupation. we are not nearly as bad as we used to be. Just for a lark, check out all the occupations that happened under President Woody Wilson. It just may surprise you.

Have a day
RD

[Dáin Ironfoot I]

Well if the US is gonna "take over Canada" then Quebec better declare independence now!!! :D

Vive le Quebec!

[FREEDOM!]

Well the reason is to protect you, cause right now you have no military so if you were to be attacked you would fall pretty easilly (until we intervened, not saying that you can't do that) but if you guys got attacked then we'd be very vulnerable, so we are going to protect both of us while you guys build up your military.

Good thesis, but watch your spelling
B-

[FREEDOM!]

What about my spelling?? "Yo" can spell it you or yo.

[Rogue666666]

Let me start off by saying that while I am composing this reply it is difficult to hold my feelings in check. Some of the things America has been accused of here are absolutley untrue. First, let me say this. If the United States of America had simply "minded its own business" or stayed completely out of world politics, then you can bet that ALL of Europe would probably either be under the Kaiser or a Nazi dictatorship. Can you deny this? Yes Proudfoots, you are very quick to point out all the "horrible atrocities" that America has commited, and yet will you not aknowledge that the world would be a far more evil place if it were not for all the good that America has done? Or are you so selfish and short sighted as to believe that every single U.S citizen has plans for taking over the world? And, if you will excuse my language, why the heck would the United States whant such a completely barren land as Canada? Do you think we really need thousands of acres of of ice coverd dirt? Besides, your argument is flawed. The very document you point out to prove your argument correct, proves your argument INCORRECT.

I have several relatives who sacrificed themselves so that millions of others around the world could be free! Do you think that all those American soldiers who died in Veitnam really cared about the profits they could make once it was there's? Yes, we do make mistakes. Sometimes, when we are trying to lessen the suffering of the world, we fail, as in the event mentioned above. But why in God's name do you think that we would sacrifice the people we love? So that we can improve our economic status? Why? Our economic status already beats anyone else's out there.
Thorin, you sayed that we "mess things up" but that we have good intentions. As I said before, if we hadn't come into Europe and "messed things up" then everyone would be screaming 'Hile Hitler' at the top of their lungs.

One final thing. Do you think it is because of the way we supposedly "bully other nations" that the Arab extremists hate us? NO!!! They hate you just as much as me. There religion tells them to annhilate any who do not serve them. They attack America because we are the only ones who recognize what a danger they are and have the will power to stop them. If America were wiped off the face of the Earth, they would target England, and then France, and so on. Eventually Canada would be the target of their rage. How would you feel if they wiped one of your cities of the face of the earth in nuclear fire? Do you really belive that they woudn't do that to the "peace loving" canadians? You say that they do not have nuclear weapons? PAH! It is only a matter of time.....

[FREEDOM!]

Amen Brother!!