quote:

Originally posted by Michael19 maybe its because the canadian goverment hasnt invaded another country?

And also.. maybe its becuase i just want to talk about US politcs?

Hes too simple minded to understand though... let him be

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by h@x0r On the flip side: One other thing I noticed - Cyrus pays an awful lot of attention to American affairs. Not seen that many posts criticizing Canadian government or actions. I guess Canada must be a country with flawless government.

Well, since the USA is pretty much the only superpower left in the world in only make sense that people would be suspicious of it since if the USA for any reason decided to just start taking over countries there is little other nations could do to stop it. A hypothetical example would be if the USA just decided to "annex" Mexico. This would of course cause a lot of problems, but would unlikely result in any militaristic opposition. Of course I wouldn't imagine a scenario like that would ever unfold, however the potential is enough to keep many people very concerned with US foreign policy.

As you can imagine Canada does not pose quite the threat that the USA does.

quote:

Originally posted by DampCold Well, since the USA is pretty much the only superpower left in the world in only make sense that people would be suspicious of it since if the USA for any reason decided to just start taking over countries there is little other nations could do to stop it. A hypothetical example would be if the USA just decided to "annex" Mexico. This would of course cause a lot of problems, but would unlikely result in any militaristic opposition. Of course I wouldn't imagine a scenario like that would ever unfold, however the potential is enough to keep many people very concerned with US foreign policy. As you can imagine Canada does not pose quite the threat that the USA does.

Iraq and insurgants come to mind........

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 You've got a point there.

What point would that be?

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

quote:

Originally posted by zig Iraq and insurgants come to mind........

I don't think you quite understood the concept of what I was saying.

quote:

Originally posted by Radagast What point would that be?

quote:

They [Bush administraton] didn´t invest billions of dollars just to free people and see Democracy that will pick another anti America president.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16

I don't believe the Bush administration has stated that they will influence the Iraqi elections in any way. I also don't believe you have any proof that they will. In fact, if an anti-american Iraqi leader was chosen it would break none of the official reasons given at any time as to why we invaded Iraq, at any point.


Additionally, if,

Reality(Bush administration statement):
The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, and promotion of freedom.

Your mind:
The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, promotion of freedom, and rigging of subsequent Iraqi election.

Then what standard are you using to translate the worth of the institution of democracy/freedom into monetary value? At what point does this worth become less than an imaginary hidden agenda which co-opts the official justification for entering the country entirely?

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

quote:

Originally posted by Radagast I don't believe the Bush administration has stated that they will influence the Iraqi elections in any way. I also don't believe you have any proof that they will. In fact, if an anti-american Iraqi leader was chosen it would break none of the official reasons given at any time as to why we invaded Iraq, at any point. Additionally, if, Reality(Bush administration statement): The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, and promotion of freedom. Your mind: The U.S. monetary cost for invading Iraq paid for removal of cruel tyranny, institution of democracy, promotion of freedom, and rigging of subsequent Iraqi election. Then what standard are you using to translate the worth of the institution of democracy/freedom into monetary value? At what point does this worth become less than an imaginary hidden agenda which co-opts the official justification for entering the country entirely?

I don't have any proof of any sort of a plot to hijack the election, but it's obvious that the Iranian government is not favored by the U.S. administration. If you look at the religious makeup of Iraq, the largest group practices a more conservative type of Islam, which could very well bring Iraq to ally itself with Iran based on a fair democratic election. It wouldn't make any sense for them to get rid of Saddam for a government that would potentially be even less friendly with the U.S. There's already set-aside seats for Sunni leaders to ensure they get at least a certain amount of representation, so it's clearly not an election based solely on votes. Many groups within Iraq's boundaries do not lke each other, so many rules are being put into place to curb the Shi-ite majority and include more Sunni & Kurdish representation.

Also, in reality, we entered the country based on justifications that had little to do with democracy. With what Bush said to the U.N., if Saddam had WMDs, reported and dismantled them, we would have left the country under his rule.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Last edited by wolverine16 on Jan-22-2005 at 08:29

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 it's obvious that the Iranian government is not favored by the U.S. administration.

Is it? How so?

quote:

If you look at the religious makeup of Iraq, the largest group practices a more conservative type of Islam, which could very well bring Iraq to ally itself with Iran based on a fair democratic election.

So?

quote:

It wouldn't make any sense for them to get rid of Saddam for a government that would potentially be even less friendly with the U.S.

No it would not. However, it would make sense for them to get rid of Saddam for a new democratic government, whatever the new governments alignment toward the U.S.

quote:

Also, in reality, we entered the country based on justifications that had little to do with democracy. With what Bush said to the U.N., if Saddam had WMDs, reported and dismantled them, we would have left the country under his rule.

Irrelevant.

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

quote:

Originally posted by Radagast Is it? How so?

Umm, you really think that the Bush Administration likes the Iranian government? We don't even have political relations with them and we have sanctions in place. They were also part of the "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq.

quote:

so?

So we wouldn't want a government in place if it would be more hostile to the U.S. and as I just stated, we don't get along with Iran. Securiting the safety of the U.S.is also a main point of the Bush administration.

quote:

However, it would make sense for them to get rid of Saddam for a new democratic government, whatever the new governments alignment toward the U.S.

If the democracy turns the county toward civil war,a fundamentalist theocracy or makes us less safe than when Saddam was in power, it doesn't make sense for the U.S. It's very possibe a new regime elected fairly could become more dangerous to us, because Bin Laden favors theocratic rule, where Saddam did not. It would be possible that the new regime would offer aide to Al Qaeda, which Iran has been reported to by some.

quote:

Irrelevant.

I was disputing what you said in the latter part of your previous post, rather than bolstering my own argument.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

I think bush will never attack Iran or NK, because he is a coward.
he attacked Iraq, because it was the easiest target, and not because of the "War On Terror".

___________________

Best Album Ever:
* Infected Mushroom - B.P.Empire