Hi, marcos - I wish people would read what was said, instead of what they think was said.
First - "Another example - a federal department of the USA is at this moment persecuting my province of British Columbia "
That also happens to be my province, so I hope you won't mind sharing it.>g<
WRT the trade difficulties, if you do a little digging on trade disputes, worlwide, you will find that they are a norm. What is abnormal is their absence. In many cases, they have caused wars. The difficulty on the softwood lumber dispute will be resolved. If it is not, then the lumber will stay, and grow on our lands, until such time as it is needed, and we will then collect a premium price for it.
We have a long and difficult history of trade issues with the US; by far the majority of them have been resolved, after some haggling. I suspect that this will, too. I resent your attempt to speak about Americans as if they are some kind of monsters because this issue has proved difficult. The matter demands that both Canadians and Americans work to resolve the issue, and adopt a mutually satisfactory (or unsatisfactory, such often being the result of fair negotiations) bilateral agreement.
"you begin your post with 'The moralists are havin' a field day' and then you proceed to moralise -g- ....."
On the contrary, the thrust of my post was that the moral dimension of war will be washed away by time: what will be left, in a thousand years, is who won, and who lost. There will be no references to who was right. History will not care.
My comments about Thread Stars are related to the quality of the debate, and do not constitute moralizing. The remarks were more a reflection on the damage that is done to responsible debate when people are heedless of facts and logic. I don't post a lot (today being an exception >g<) but I see a lot of posts that are more a reflection of prejudice and belief, than good argument.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" (as Seinfeld would say) - but the unsupported posting of unsupportable positions is just babble. It is certainly not responsible debate. Let's not confuse the two.
"Jim, no group or organisation run by human beings has ever been or ever will be perfect, and that includes the USA .... "
marcos, that statement is in perfect agreement with my post.
"For example - helping the french to recolonise Indochina following the help the locals gave in beating back the japanese empire .... doesn't matter how many chinese or russian boogeymen you dream up here, this was immoral [read 'stupid'] .... observe how the locals used said chinese and russians and then dropped them when the goal of independence was attained, sort of makes you think maybe Truman should have responded more intelligently to Ho Chi Minh's letter of 1946 with the US declaration of independence quotes in it, eh"
Ah, another proponent of Retroactive 20/20 Vision. When you read the accounts of Truman's reaction, and the failure of subsequent administrations to rectify the error (especially including Eisenhower's, before it all started to get out of control) - did you read accounts of the world Truman inhabited, then? In what context was he supposed to have recognized "good" Communism? What wonderful and enlightened acts were being sponsored by Stalin & Co., that were supposed to inspire Truman's embrace of Minh's Paris advances?
The genesis of American policy towards a hostile and adventurist Communism occurred then, and it is a policy from which America has never deviated. Oppose Communism. Oppose it with word (Hungarian uprising), oppose it with actions (Berlin Airlift), oppose it with weapons (Korea and Viet Nam). Support capitalism, and representational democracy (Marshall Plan).
Insofar as America found it impossible to distinguish between "good" Communism and "bad" Communism, she opposed all Communism. Allende. Guevera.
Did she do it "right" all the time? No. But she muddled through, and in the end, Communism (as a monolithic opponent) ceased to be. Did America "screw up" in Viet Nam? Yes. But only through execution not intent.
Overall, and in the balance, did the American policy of "containment" work? The answer is obvious. I don't think the most diehard Communist would argue anything but American triumph.
Now, if you want to try to make an argument for the immorality of the Cold War (on the part of all involved parties, not just America) - then I would agree. It was a huge tragedy, spnsoring several smaller conflicts, and represented a tragic squandering of resources.
But, I'll ask you the standard question:
"Since you are so determined to damn America, and America alone, for the Cold War (for I have not seen any criticism of Russia, China, or North Korea in your post) - what alternative broad international policy would you suggest, that offered a maximal chance of success, at a minimal cost in American lives?"
I won't hold my breath for an answer...
"Feel free to ask about Nicaragua and United Fruit and the atrocities of Reagan's goons while you're there, however beware of falling into the trap of two-party 'fer-us' or 'agin-us' thinking, world's a much more diverse place than that, the fact that any individual has criticisms of specific US actions does not necessarily make them perma-critics ... for example, many workers of the Commerzwaffe-devastated forest industry here, myself among them, support so far the US/UK/et al actions against terrorist bases ..."
Gee, thanks for clearing all that up, marcos. I love it when somebody doesn't really read someone else's posts, and then seizes the opportunity to launch on an illogical diatribe that exposes a series of poorly thought-out prejudices.
"Commerzwaffe?" You and Bro Duray been giving each other lessons on illogical elocution?
FYI, I was working with the Brothers in the forest industry here long before you were posting on SI. I would be the last to support their rapacious policies, nor those of a kowtowing government bent on supporting their misstated profits.
marcos, I see that you are one of those who carries a bandwagon of issues, perceived slights, some real wrongs, and a heapin' helpin' of righteous indignation with you, wherever you go.
As you say of America, "...there is a whole lot of room for criticism in its actions..."
I really like this one..."which cannot last, simply cannot, we just seem to have this huge capacity to take shit from the US, being so close to it, but there's a limit and it's not far away imho"
Heading for Washington with a chainsaw, hmmmm?
Good luck on your screwball tilt at America's historical legacy. I see you are ready to serve up a steaming crock of injustices, yours, mine, anybody's in your delightful pursuit of Yankee-bashing.
Don Quixote would be proud of you. Sic 'em, marcos!
Regards,
Jim |
