I won't even try to deny that Canada isn't relevant geopolitically-wise. We are simply too integrated into the defence structure of the U.S., and too economically dependant on you to steer away from whatever the U.S. might want. To be honest, I'd think Canada should join the U.S. as several new states, to ease the economical transfer, increase your oil reserve, integrate naval defense (air defense is already integrated), and specially, give you origignal U.S. American the demographic weight you will badly need when (I doubt it's gonna be "if") the mexican immigrants will flood on your side of the border to get jobs in the U.S. during the coming labor shortage.

Did I came across as a U.S. hater in my (recent) posts? I know I have a past of U.S. criticism, but studies of Stratfor analysis made me re-evaluate my views. Right now, however, it's the... irrational behavior that I see happening in your country, politically-wise, that worries me. Not the country itself.

U.S. foreign policy hasn't really changed in the past 8 months, contrary to what some Obamafan might want to believe. Russia actually is starting to be more open to sanctions on Iran, and France has been backing you up incredibly in the matter too. There has been progresses happening on the matter. These progresses might have happened earlier, if everybody wasn't believing Bush to be a sitting duck in the White House (but then again, this sentence is a wild guess).

To quote George Friedman: "The U.S. has a huge error margin when it comes to its foreign policy. It can afford to be wrong much more than any other country in the world". But then again, I also suscribe to his opinion that the U.S. will always end up doing the proper thing for it's own safety in the end. Which is why I have so much trust about you beating the Russians in the small cold-war that is erupting.

I was merely voicing the fact that not many countries were ready to follow the U.S. in many ventures since 2003. Even the Iraqi attack wasn't really a show of your world leadership. I don't see how you are any less a leader now in the eyes of your allies/ennemies than in the past 6 years. If you want to make the argument that your sheer military/economical strenght was ennough to garantee you a "leader" position, fine. I just don't see how your military's apparatus was reduced by Obama, nor how Obama might be held responsible for the economical nightmare we all are in.

Khameni is the Dictator. Ahmadinejad is a puppet with very weird strings.

I feel compelled to leave to quotes for y'all to think about, they are:

"The price of greatness is responsibility." ~W. Churchill

"The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say "I." And that's not because they have trained themselves not to say "I." They don't think "I." They think "we"; they think "team." They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don't sidestep it, but "we" gets the credit. This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done." ~ P. Drucker

It's my opinion that our nation has, over the last few years, acquired a sense of arrogance- or at least our gov't has. We seem to think we're given a divine right to lead, but I disagree. We've earned that privilige through hard work, determination, co-operation, and so on. Lest we want other people and countries to know us negatively (rational people) we need to remember that we're not the only nation out there, and an ounce of humility would be nice.

Btw, I say this because I love my country, so any cries of being anti-american and so on - you can just stuff 'em.


Night, ~AJ

Ok, i'll take that answer... I thought you were suggesting that Iran was a free democracy or some such.

I think a US/Canada merger would be a bad idea... too much Commonwealth instilled there, not to mention French nationalism. The population of Canada is about the size of the US black population (about 13%) so it wouldn't make a big impact in the long run. Both the black and white US birthrate is near neutral, while the hispanic population is breeding like rabbits. That's just the nature of things.

As far as jobs, I'm not so sure. As the illegal voting block (amazing isn't it?) pushes for amnesty, supported by our Democrat party, I have no doubt they will eventually succeed. Then these "poor' migrants will not be satisfied with low and in some cases below minimum wage jobs. Commercial orchards will be plowed under, and only crops that can be harvested mechanically will be grown on a large scale. Finally when the US is made into Mexico II, people here will need to go somewhere for work, Canada will be as good as any. Right now though there is no shortage of jobs.

No, I was generalizing on a world view as a whole. I try to address points by personalizing them. In this reply I was back and forth. But as far as hating the US, you can a little. Most liberals abroad (and some domestic) hate the US to some extent, at least a little bit. Some more. I've come to expect this. It comes from their desire to "manage" the US, a natural liberal fantasy IMO. I've made my peace with that and it doesn't bother me. 

Really? IMO US foreign policy has changed like night and day, my friend. Russia is talking out the side of their neck, but remain aloof with their "support". I don't trust them. Iran is a big buyer of their products, so they would be giving up more. France, now has a conservative president. The former socialist leaders of France use to disagree with the US as a matter of policy, going back over 25 years, long before Bush or his dad held office. IMO France has now taken the leadership position on Iran. Obama is perceived by Iran (and most nations that matter in this arena) as a weakling. You see progress, I see Obama getting schooled by Iran. Now my lack of support for Obama is not hard to see, but I don't want him to fail in Iran, it's too important for the world. Unfortunately I believe he is failing there.

Funny how the media played down the significance of those that did go. They were known as the "coalition of the willing". Anyway, the UN had the resolutions in place that Iraq broke and caused the US and coalition forces to take action. The real shame is on those that did not support the decision of the "world body" (what does that say about the UN?). And people wonder why rouge countries do what they do. It's because most of the world talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. But, don't worry the US has entered a new era of meekness.

Wrong we lead because others refuse or are incapable to lead, plain and simple.

People will think what they want to think. As long as the US is strong somebody will resent that, no matter what we do. So why get your panties in a twist worrying about it? I don't care (althought I find it interesting) what anyone outside the US thinks about us, that's fine if they like us or don't. The US's generosity did not decrease during the Bush years, it increased, yet many of  those with their hand out will still spit in your face, that's the way it is. Be humble all you want, but do it in private, because nobody respects a weakling. We are seeing that now.

Have you seen that touching commercial with the girl with downs syndrome being nominated prom queen? Sure everyone feels great (about themselves) that they voted for the "poor" girl, but you can bet she isn't getting laid that night, and she is only being set up for future disappointment. Kind of cruel if you ask me. Same thing is happening with the Obamapology tour. Everyone (outside the US) is clapping and cheering (not because the US is somehow better now, but because finally a US president is confirming what they suspected was true. They are clapping because they are right) but now that the crowds are gone, this loser (Obama) "can't even get a ride home from the prom". They don't like America more, just the opposite, their views have been validated.

Show me one great nation in the history of the world that has apologized to the world for it's actions? Show me a nation that humbled itself (of its own accord) before the world? Obama's actions are unprecedented in history and not in the best interest of the country.

AJ I wouldn't dream of accusing you of being anti-American, I don't think that is the case at all. But I would say you're being a little naive about world perception. Remember arrogance can also be believing the world is laughing with you and not at you. Worry less about how people perceive us and worry more about how we perceive us. The answers are here, not outside as nobody besides other Americans has our best interest at heart. I'd give the same advice to the rest of the world.

You realize that most great nations of history have nearly always collapsed, right? Egypt - collapsed. Rome - collapsed. Greece - collapsed. The list goes on and on. Anyways, I digress; the reasons for their collapse are complex and something I won't go into right now.

How are they not? You seem to think that he is trying to make us bend over and take it up the rear. I see nothing wrong with saying, "Hey, listen...I know what the previous administration did, and that it ticked you off. However, we're not going to do things that same way. We're going to listen and work with everyone. We're still going to pursue our interests, but we're going to take everyone - every nation - into account."

It's like a football team...everyone is going for the same thing, but there is no one person working toward that goal.

Unfortunately, it has been a common thing (in general) among some people here, so I figured I would be proactive and (hopefully) stop it before it started.

On the contrary, I have no misunderstanding that some people just do not like us; I realize some people hate our guts. My point still stands though - why give them more to prove their anti-US rhetoric? Yes, we do a lot of good out there, but we also, sometimes, act like a child. We do shit over and over again that ticks even the friendlier countries. Why give them the ammo to fight their anti-us war?

Prudence goes a long way; speak softly and work with the natioins, but yes - carry that big stick. There are times when -- not violence or aggression per se -- but when justice is needed to be carried out. I would hope that in that case, we would wish to do it as a group of nations, and not think we have some duty to do it ourselves. Such thinking can also serve a practical means in that other countries would contribute to the costs of certain...expeditions.

My belief comes from the concept: Speak softly and carry a big stick. I don't have any issue with justified use of force (in defense), but I do have issues with our government seeming to think we can stick our nose into whatever we want. If we want to get shit done, then we need to stop pissing people off as much as we can. You don't beat/tease the dogs and then jump into the middle of the dog pound. Shit like us meddling with other people's problems, when we have no right to...it's just stupid. It serves no good use.

Being humble does not mean you are weak; in fact, showing some humility every now and then is a great thing. It shows you're not an arrogant jack ass, know-it-all, aggressive shit starter, etc. (Usually, not always though)

No he's bending us over to make himself look good abroad. It's all about Obama's ego, a monster that must be feed with admiration. He is allergic to criticism.

Tell me which ones had their leaders apologize to their neighbors for the previous leaders policies? Hey, you've been in school a lot more recently than I, what are they teaching these days?

That would be great if that is really what he said, but it isn't. Obama said the Bush administration was wrong and that he didn't like its policies. No sitting president has ever gone abroad and bad mouthed a previous administration. Obama does this almost every time he is abroad. We know he doesn't like Bush, he needs to keep it here. He seems to be campaigning every time he speaks. People are noticing.

Can't think of any at the moment, but I'll give it a thought some more later. Then again most of those great nations where led by egomaniacs who loved the attention and were extremely arrogant, among other things. Not really a good formula. They felt they could push other countries around for whateve reason they wished - exerting their "leadership," and such.

 (Only been ~5 years since I graduated btw, lol)

Oh, and just your typical evil liberal education: Reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, physical education, health, and so on so forth. You know, what they need to teach to recruit people.  ;~P

Well given that more than a few countries did not particularly care for what was done, and felt like we lost our way from the America they remember (the strong one mind you)...yeah, anyways - moving on.  

Call me whatever you wish, but to me...apologizing for what the previous representative of the country (which is what the president is) did that ticked of countries, is a smart thing. That way, the other countries will actually work with you and well, you can do things that benefit your country. 

Yeah, some coutnries will hate us - big deal. There are those countries who still will work with them, but do you really think it's wise, not to say smart, to continue acting the way we have been - which has been pissing them off?

Gee, concept.

Mmm, I disagree. To each their own.

I have to disagree. It's ok to be humble, to show some humility; but we have to accept that as a powerful country, we have a powerful responsibility. As Nitro said, someone has to take the lead and we always seem to be the ones doing it. Should we allow a country like Iran or N Korea to have nukes like us just because we have them? If no one else is working to stop them should we just ignore it and deal with the problem after the bomb goes off?

The problem is not that we are arrogant, most of the leaders of every country are arrogant. The problem is they don't like it that it's us trying to do something about it because they think we are simply looking to expand our reach, our power to be bigger than everyone else. No one ever sees it as doing the right thing. It's kinda how Frogboy put it in his article about Good Will, everyone see's the action of the US, not as doing it out of Good Will, but that we want something in return.

As I said, we can be humble and have lots of humility, but from personal experience in this day in age being humble and having a lot of humility usually leads to one thing, taking advantage. Why? Because regardless of how much any says we are allies or friends, they will always put their country first and everyone always wants to be on top. He who is on top is always seen as a target by those at the bottom. Humbleness and humility is always seen as a weakness even if we don't see it that way. When it comes to survival, it's not about what you think, it's about what others think about you. You may think a lion will not attack you because of the guns you carry and you shoot everytime one gets close but try to make friends with a lion and you risk the lion taking your show of freindship as a sign of weakness and a chance to get passed your guns and take you for what you really are to it, food.

We live in a world where borders define the difference between each person on this planet. Regardless if we all bleed red blood, breath air, eat food, crap or pee; most people see people from outside of their country as anything other than of the same race. Humanity. As long as that ignorance continues, these problems will always exist and no matter who sits atop they will always be someone esles target.

I  only have time to address a single point, but it's one that I think is significant. I'll get to the rest of your reply once I have a longer break between classes today Charles.

Which is exactly my point -- that is what they think. Perception is - pardon my language - a bitch; ninety-nine percent of everything in life is processed (and so on so forth) based on our perception of it. Hence my caution and urging of prudence in foreign matters. We haven't exactly justified or explained thoroughly our ("apparently") noble reasons for doing what some claim to be the right thing (What *is* the right thing? That's a whole other discussion).

Our leaders and their acolytes may claim that they are doing things for a noble and grand reason, but there are those internationally and domestically  that just don't see it that way, for whatever reason.

~AJ

I understand the caution you wish we took into consideration, but we should not always be worrying about what others think. Do you not think that someone like, say, Castro would dislike the US if we went around promoting the idea of voting for a new leader every few years, say 4? Do you think we should take Catsro's feelings into consideration when we promote this so that we can still convince people to move towards this kind of idea knowing he will not like it because it will mean the end of his dominance over the Cuban people (not taking into consideration he's close to dying). Do you take your childs feelings into consideration when you say no to them for something they absolutely want? Sure, but you still say no. See my point? Sometimes someone has to take the lead, sometimes someone has to make the hard choices and then someone has to take the fall for it all. The US makes mistakes like anyone else and sometimes we don't take others into consideration when doing something that benefits us. But I choose not to ignore the good that we have done compared to the wrong things we have done because it's all part of life. No one is perfect. I see more good than wrong and while I would rather we did all good and no wrong, it's simply ludicrous to believe it's possible.

What's right is always a subjective concept. It really all depends on who's the one deciding what isright and what is wrong. Do you think people like Castro, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad think what they do as leaders of their countries is wrong? Or maybe those in countries like Darfur, or what Hitler did. Regardless what anyone thinks or says, it's my personal belief that our country (regardless who was President at any given time) is nothing like any of thes world leaders past or present. But as right or wrong is subjective, I'm sure many would disagree with me but I won't let their beliefs twart mine, which is probably the same reason countries like Iran and N Korea are so defiant.

Should we leave them allow and ignore their desires to acquire things such as nuclear weapons or fund terrorist groups or wish to obliterate countries like Israel just because we may think it's wrong but they may not?

Should we therefore not do anything and simply cross the bridge when we get to it? Do you believe in preventive action or after the fact? Should we wait for Iran to possibly drop a nuke on Israel before we all agree they were capable and it was their intentions all along or do we work under the assumption that a man, who denies the holocaust, who has said many times that Israel should be destroyed, that has funded terrorist organizations, who hid a second nuclear power plant, who sent terrorist-like groups to attack his own people who believed his election was a fraud, might be capable of making nukes out of his "for energy only" nuclear program and use them against Israel with the rockets he recently tested since he believes it the right thing to do?

Like I said Charles, and I will say it again - there are always, always exceptions to it. That being said, is it not practical to seek help from other nations when, say, we go to war? That would mean: Less troops, less cost, less time (possibly), and so on so forth. It would also strength diplomatic bonds so that, say, down the road if we need help - they are more likely say yes, as opposed to no, or something more colorful.

That's presumptious Charles because I don't ignore the good we do. Granted, I do often come off as extremely critical of the United States, but that's because I give a damn (a lot) about my native country.

Yes, we make mistakes, but does that mean we shouldn't apologize for them? What gives us the right, or entitlement to be arrogant and not think we should own up to our mistakes?

That's the biggest issue I have -- the, seemingly, arrogance that people display when it pertains to our country. Simply, we should be willing to own up to our D'uh moments, no matter how big our ego is, how wide our pride is, or how arrogant we may be. It's not just practical, diplomatically smart, part of the American spirit/way, but it is also beneficial to us in our pursuit of our interests.

You're fallaciously generalizing Charles.

Honestly, I cannot answer that because I've yet to reconcile defensive and proactive action. I believe in defending and would defend my friends and family with a vengeance, but I cannot say that I would seek pre-emptive/preventative action. That to me still rings of aggression and "acceptable" violence.

Why be so concerned about Israel? Okay, so they're our "only" ally (yeah, right. *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough*) in the middle east. Your point? We need to stop coddling or worrying so much about them and more about us. What happens in Israel, should just stay in Israel - you know? Granted, it may affect us, but we'll deal with it when it does.

Charles, he's been in office since 2005 - so that's four years. We've believed they have had the capabilities and intention for a while now...so...why haven't they given some terrorist some uranium or other radioactive materials for a dirty bomb? He has had a lot of time, and many many opportunities to carry out his threats....but he hasn't. Why?

Again, I point back to my point regarding him being a blowhard. (Doesn't mean he isn't dangerous, but I feel it is unlikely he'll carry out the threats)

Granted, so how do you know what you're talking about is right? LOL Sorry, had to throw that out there. Oh, I am positive they do -- people can rationally explain damn near anything.  Who says we're like them? I don't; we're far from them, but we have to protect our image (as well as credibility, etc.). Also, it's a practical thing to do in that it can help with our national defense.

Ahmadinijead(sp?) is a blowhard; he is an egocentric meglomaniac who is saying whatever he can to keep himself in power for as long as he can (Which is ironic, given that he is, ultimately, really just a puppet of the theocratic despot Khamenei). He knows damn well, as do every Arab/anti-israel nation, that if they go to war with Israel...they'll get their arses handed to them on a silver platter. Granted, it gets tossed on it's head when nuclear weapons are introduced, but then again...Israel has a program of their own.

Charles -- granted, we need to keep fighting them -- but do you realistically believe that we are going to defeat once and for all these terrorist groups? My money is on no, simply because it is human nature to be easily swayed and to give into hate, violence, and so on. As long as there are more than two people in the world, there will be a chance/liklihood of hate, venom, ignorance, and so on - the foundation of this perversion called terrorism.

Btw, I'm not talking about seeking their permission, per se (unless we want to do something on their soil for example). I'm talking about working with them, not against them, and definitely not devolving into the whole "Freedom Fries" ignorance again (what a joke, lol).

~AJ

yeah 30 for me...that makes your ecucation "newer".

 bingo