American to Canadian - Switch...
-
As far as I can read from your posts and discussions around here, I think not, but I might need a second opinion :) Again, it's not the container that matters, it's the content. I just read your sig. I hope I'm not going to have nightmares about you !
Maximilien wrote: I think not, but I might need a second opinion Har har hardee har har.:laugh: Very funny. Maximilien wrote: Again, it's not the container that matters, it's the content. What has W said that offends you so? Maximilien wrote: I just read your sig. I hope I'm not going to have nightmares about you :cool: Don't worry. My bark is worse than my bite. ;)
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
KaЯl wrote: Palestine deserves Independance (without settlers sifting more and more on its territory), as Israël does. Do they? As you said, Israel is a democracy, so why do they need independence? The country of Jordan is over 90% Palestinian (last I heard). Why do they need a Palestine to call their own? When the Brits and French divided the land back in the 20s or 30s (whenever), they gave east of the Jordan to the Palesinian Arabs and west of the Jordan they gave to the Palestinian Jews. They don't want their own country, they want to push the Jews into the sea.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: Do they? As you said, Israel is a democracy, so why do they need independence? In 1776, UK was still a constitutionnal monarchy, with a parlament, wasn't it ? :-D Jason Henderson wrote: The country of Jordan is over 90% Palestinian (last I heard). Study how these palestinians went there. Moreover, how many jews were born outside Israel before 1945 ? Jason Henderson wrote: When the Brits and French divided the land back in the 20s or 30s You forget the partition voted by UN in 1948[^], it's IMO more important than an imperialistic agreement made after WWI. Jason Henderson wrote: They don't want their own country, they want to push the Jews into the sea. Your generalization is too wide. Palestinian Authority asks for 1967 borders.
Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Do they? As you said, Israel is a democracy, so why do they need independence? In 1776, UK was still a constitutionnal monarchy, with a parlament, wasn't it ? :-D Jason Henderson wrote: The country of Jordan is over 90% Palestinian (last I heard). Study how these palestinians went there. Moreover, how many jews were born outside Israel before 1945 ? Jason Henderson wrote: When the Brits and French divided the land back in the 20s or 30s You forget the partition voted by UN in 1948[^], it's IMO more important than an imperialistic agreement made after WWI. Jason Henderson wrote: They don't want their own country, they want to push the Jews into the sea. Your generalization is too wide. Palestinian Authority asks for 1967 borders.
Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans
KaЯl wrote: In 1776, UK was still a constitutionnal monarchy, with a parlament, wasn't it ? Americans had no representation in Parliament. If the king would have granted it, we might still be under British rule. KaЯl wrote: Study how these palestinians went there. Moreover, how many jews were born outside Israel before 1945 ? I agree, the French and British really screwed up the whole region. There were Jews living there before 1900, also it was the Jewish homeland prior to the Diaspora when the Romans destroyed the temple and the jewish people scattered to Europe. KaЯl wrote: Your generalization is too wide. Palestinian Authority asks for 1967 borders. Its what they ask for, but their actions say otherwise.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
KaЯl wrote: In 1776, UK was still a constitutionnal monarchy, with a parlament, wasn't it ? Americans had no representation in Parliament. If the king would have granted it, we might still be under British rule. KaЯl wrote: Study how these palestinians went there. Moreover, how many jews were born outside Israel before 1945 ? I agree, the French and British really screwed up the whole region. There were Jews living there before 1900, also it was the Jewish homeland prior to the Diaspora when the Romans destroyed the temple and the jewish people scattered to Europe. KaЯl wrote: Your generalization is too wide. Palestinian Authority asks for 1967 borders. Its what they ask for, but their actions say otherwise.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: If the king would have granted it, we might still be under British rule. And now it's the opposite. UK is the 51th state :) Jason Henderson wrote: it was the Jewish homeland prior to the Diaspora As Palestine was the homeland of Palestinians before the Nakba. As you see, it's the same problem both sides, with the same arguments, with the same rights. Jason Henderson wrote: but their actions say otherwise. Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are not under the control of PA, they are enemies. The only thing they share for the moment is the Israelian for the moment. As soon as Palestine will be independant, there will be a great risk of civil war. And the longest the situation is, the biggest are the chances that islamist extremists win. Hate geners hate, violence geners violence. Someone has to break the cyclye. I thought Rabin could, but extremists won again this time.
Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Methinks that you over evaluate your self. Maybe. I haven't been proven wrong in regards to W. and I have been proven wrong by many people, some of them my friends and family! I have a lot of questions, and I don't have a lot of answers, danm, I'd be somewhere else than sitting in front of a computer typing MFC code if I had all the answers! I pride myself in learning as much as possible of the world around me, I think it's quality that can be either a great advantage, and sometimes be very dangerous, someone can become arrogant, and refuse other opinions! I think I'm enough open minded to accept the positions of others. Going to Yale doesn't make someone intelligent! or going to UCLA makes you stupid. On a simple educational point, any university should be equivalent, it's what you make out of it that makes a better person. W. is not a better person because he went to Yale. I don't like debates ( it's confrontational and it's not in my nature ), I can have a good conversation about a lot of things, even when I don't know much about a subject; we could talk about physic as a science in general, but I cannot talk about physic finer points; same things, you take two physicians ( not medical doctors ) one in nuclear physics, and the other one in interstallar-something physic, they can't have a discussion about the particularity of each speciality, but they can and should be able to talk about physics. Max.
Maximilien wrote: Maybe. I haven't been proven wrong in regards to W. and I have been proven wrong by many people, some of them my friends and family! Then what you are saying is that 65% of the American populance is being fooled by this "moron". Thats what his approval rating is. I wish you could point to one (1) thing he has done that is bad for America - we don't really care about the rest of the world here just the U.S.A. I think he is doing a fine job myself. Maximilien wrote: Going to Yale doesn't make someone intelligent! or going to UCLA makes you stupid. On a simple educational point, any university should be equivalent, it's what you make out of it that makes a better person. W. is not a better person because he went to Yale Sure he is. Just as I was a better person for going to UCLA. I was being a bit specious on that but for my field of interest UCLA was better than Yale or Harvard and I couldn't afford to go therre anyway ( Not jealous just a fact ) . Universities are not - should not - cannot be equivalent. Just think about it for a while and you will realize for that to happen the qualities of education would have to be lowered - not raised. Excellence is a goal that cannot be acheived by everyone or it looses its signifigance. Maximilien wrote: don't like debates ( it's confrontational and it's not in my nature With out debating there can be no real understanding. Nothing sharpens ones understanding moreso then having to defend his/her position with facts and not subjecture. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Maximilien wrote: Maybe. I haven't been proven wrong in regards to W. and I have been proven wrong by many people, some of them my friends and family! Then what you are saying is that 65% of the American populance is being fooled by this "moron". Thats what his approval rating is. I wish you could point to one (1) thing he has done that is bad for America - we don't really care about the rest of the world here just the U.S.A. I think he is doing a fine job myself. Maximilien wrote: Going to Yale doesn't make someone intelligent! or going to UCLA makes you stupid. On a simple educational point, any university should be equivalent, it's what you make out of it that makes a better person. W. is not a better person because he went to Yale Sure he is. Just as I was a better person for going to UCLA. I was being a bit specious on that but for my field of interest UCLA was better than Yale or Harvard and I couldn't afford to go therre anyway ( Not jealous just a fact ) . Universities are not - should not - cannot be equivalent. Just think about it for a while and you will realize for that to happen the qualities of education would have to be lowered - not raised. Excellence is a goal that cannot be acheived by everyone or it looses its signifigance. Maximilien wrote: don't like debates ( it's confrontational and it's not in my nature With out debating there can be no real understanding. Nothing sharpens ones understanding moreso then having to defend his/her position with facts and not subjecture. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: Then what you are saying is that 65% of the American populance is being fooled by this "moron". I wouldn't worry about it...the same thing happened here with Thatcher in the 80's. It wasn't at all pleasant. ;P Inevitably, the people, the system and the government screw up frequently. But that's just human nature, hey? At the end of the day what matters is not which politicians you have or what they're currently spouting, it's the people. Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch -
:) Thanks. It's nice to be appreciated. I suppose I do find too much amusement in bashing Canadians and Europeans. But, damn its fun. Its a true challange to try makeing a Canadian angry, but I never pass up an opportunity to try. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Thanks. It's nice to be appreciated. I suppose I do find too much amusement in bashing Canadians and Europeans. But, damn its fun. Its a true challange to try makeing a Canadian angry, but I never pass up an opportunity to try. I still remember the American in a Dublin Youth Hostel bragging to a Canadian bloke about this wonderful aircraft his country invented...called the Harrier. :omg: We Brits (5 of us) didn't even need to join in. The Canadian bloke was seriously stirring it, and it was really working. :laugh: Tourists like that do you guys no favours at all... ;) Anna :rose: I should say that the Americans I know personally are really, really, nice people. However, anyone who even whiffs of a National Stereotype gets noticed - regardless of nationality. "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch -
Are there any countries in the world that get more flak than the US*? I hear people complain about American zealots who always defend the US, but does anyone think maybe they are motivated to defend because everyone loves to take pot-shots at their country? (And everyone loves it when they do?) * Other than France ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
As far as I'm concerned fire away at the UK - the country is just where I live...it's people that matter. Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschWhat I'm saying is that it seems that everyone likes to make the US the butt of jokes. There's nothing objectinable in this video, but it's a little more than coincidence that it is the US that ends up on the downside of jokes. Why is that? I think it's because people like to indulge a little bit in taking swipes at the US. I find that to be a little disconcerting that people derive satisfaction from that. No doubt, it would be different if the person on the video was saying "switch from Canadian to American". It wouldn't be quite as satisfying. Seriously, why is that -- other than the satisfaction of taking a small swipe at the US? I saw the same thing when I was in Scotland. A Scotish guy I met was constantly taking swipes at the British. Of course, I think the Scotish have a better reason to dislike the British than the world has a reason to enjoy taking swipes at the US. On the other hand, sometimes I think the jokes about Americans is a tax. It's a tax on the most powerful country in the world. When the British were a world power, no doubt they had to endure the same thing. Same with the Romans. It's the cost of working hard and becoming the only superpower. Everyone likes to take shots at the guy on top. But, it still gets a bit old after a while. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Could you please define what a "terrorist organization" is ? (Don't worry, I don't try to defend Hezbollah, but this term is used so much than it doesn't have for me any signification anymore)
Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans
Could you please define what a "terrorist organization" is There has been some debate in the UN about defining "terrorism". it hasn't gotten much of anywhere because of political forces involved. Some nations (e.g. the US and Israel) believe that terrorism is the intentional targeting and killing of civilians (i.e. non-combatants) as a means to cause political change. This is a pretty simple definition, and it is the one that I support. (Yes, yes, I am an American, but don't think I'm just backing whatever my country says; I also readily speak out when I think the US is plain wrong -- and sometimes it is.) A different definition - the one supported by South Africa and Arab nations - is that terrorism is as defined above except in the following case: the fight is being waged against a racist or occupying government. This exclusion allows them to justify killing white civilians in South Africa (during the days of aparthied), and it also allows them to justify Palestinians blowing up busloads of civilians in Israel, and blowing up theaters in Moscow. Nothing ever happened with either definition because no one could agree on a single definition. The problem with the second definition is this: it is rather subjective. They can justify blowing up a theater in Russia because it is an occupying force in Chechnya? Okay. What if a couple guys in Montana decide to ceceed from the US (as happened a few years ago)? Are they justified in calling the US an "occupied force", thereby justifying terrorism? What about Kashmir? Pakistan thinks India is an occupying force. India thinks Pakistan is an occupying force. Therefore, both can say, "I'm allowed to intentionally kill your civilians" Is the Israeli government racist? Or is it responding to the fact that Palestinians (not Jews) are the only ones blowing up buses? Under this definition, it's easy for anyone to come up with a superficially logical reason why the enemy is either an occupier or racist. In my opinion, if you want to fight a racist or occupying force, you'll just have to target soldiers. Otherwise, you'll be a terrorist. You might immediately think of a few problems Western conduct even under my definition of a terrorist. First, you might point out the civilians killed by US bombing in Afghanistan. This does not fall under terrorism because it was not an intentional targeting of civilians. (The US did not say, "Look some Afghani civilians in a big group - let's drop a bomb." On the other hand, Palestinian suicide bombe
-
Could you please define what a "terrorist organization" is There has been some debate in the UN about defining "terrorism". it hasn't gotten much of anywhere because of political forces involved. Some nations (e.g. the US and Israel) believe that terrorism is the intentional targeting and killing of civilians (i.e. non-combatants) as a means to cause political change. This is a pretty simple definition, and it is the one that I support. (Yes, yes, I am an American, but don't think I'm just backing whatever my country says; I also readily speak out when I think the US is plain wrong -- and sometimes it is.) A different definition - the one supported by South Africa and Arab nations - is that terrorism is as defined above except in the following case: the fight is being waged against a racist or occupying government. This exclusion allows them to justify killing white civilians in South Africa (during the days of aparthied), and it also allows them to justify Palestinians blowing up busloads of civilians in Israel, and blowing up theaters in Moscow. Nothing ever happened with either definition because no one could agree on a single definition. The problem with the second definition is this: it is rather subjective. They can justify blowing up a theater in Russia because it is an occupying force in Chechnya? Okay. What if a couple guys in Montana decide to ceceed from the US (as happened a few years ago)? Are they justified in calling the US an "occupied force", thereby justifying terrorism? What about Kashmir? Pakistan thinks India is an occupying force. India thinks Pakistan is an occupying force. Therefore, both can say, "I'm allowed to intentionally kill your civilians" Is the Israeli government racist? Or is it responding to the fact that Palestinians (not Jews) are the only ones blowing up buses? Under this definition, it's easy for anyone to come up with a superficially logical reason why the enemy is either an occupier or racist. In my opinion, if you want to fight a racist or occupying force, you'll just have to target soldiers. Otherwise, you'll be a terrorist. You might immediately think of a few problems Western conduct even under my definition of a terrorist. First, you might point out the civilians killed by US bombing in Afghanistan. This does not fall under terrorism because it was not an intentional targeting of civilians. (The US did not say, "Look some Afghani civilians in a big group - let's drop a bomb." On the other hand, Palestinian suicide bombe
Excellent demonstration, well documented and well argued, congratulation :) I agree with all your points and share your view. I would perhaps precise your definition by saying "terrorism is the intentional targeting and killing of civilians (i.e. non-combatants) as a means to support a political objective". After all, there could also be "conservative" terrorism, whose target is to keep the political situation as it is (as the operation "Condor" in Latin America). With this definition we could argue that French repression in Algeria or US in Viet-Nam during the 60's were also made of terrorist actions, as also was the british army shooting civilians during the Bloody Sunday. That's why we have, western countries, to be very careful using this word, and not claiming that every of our enemies are terrorists, we were often in our history from the wrong side.
Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans
-
What I'm saying is that it seems that everyone likes to make the US the butt of jokes. There's nothing objectinable in this video, but it's a little more than coincidence that it is the US that ends up on the downside of jokes. Why is that? I think it's because people like to indulge a little bit in taking swipes at the US. I find that to be a little disconcerting that people derive satisfaction from that. No doubt, it would be different if the person on the video was saying "switch from Canadian to American". It wouldn't be quite as satisfying. Seriously, why is that -- other than the satisfaction of taking a small swipe at the US? I saw the same thing when I was in Scotland. A Scotish guy I met was constantly taking swipes at the British. Of course, I think the Scotish have a better reason to dislike the British than the world has a reason to enjoy taking swipes at the US. On the other hand, sometimes I think the jokes about Americans is a tax. It's a tax on the most powerful country in the world. When the British were a world power, no doubt they had to endure the same thing. Same with the Romans. It's the cost of working hard and becoming the only superpower. Everyone likes to take shots at the guy on top. But, it still gets a bit old after a while. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Brit wrote: What I'm saying is that it seems that everyone likes to make the US the butt of jokes. There's nothing objectinable in this video, but it's a little more than coincidence that it is the US that ends up on the downside of jokes. Why is that? I think it's because people like to indulge a little bit in taking swipes at the US. I find that to be a little disconcerting that people derive satisfaction from that. No doubt, it would be different if the person on the video was saying "switch from Canadian to American". It wouldn't be quite as satisfying. Seriously, why is that -- other than the satisfaction of taking a small swipe at the US? I saw the same thing when I was in Scotland. A Scotish guy I met was constantly taking swipes at the British. Of course, I think the Scotish have a better reason to dislike the British than the world has a reason to enjoy taking swipes at the US. On the other hand, sometimes I think the jokes about Americans is a tax. It's a tax on the most powerful country in the world. When the British were a world power, no doubt they had to endure the same thing. Same with the Romans. It's the cost of working hard and becoming the only superpower. Everyone likes to take shots at the guy on top. But, it still gets a bit old after a while. I think you're spot on. US culture is all-pervasive throughout the world, and a lot of it is terrible (admit it: how many people think MacDonalds is a "good thing"? X|). Naturally that will make the US the but of jokes and digs - it comes with the territory. I just wish people wouldn't take it so seriously and be so in your face with their patriotism/nationalism as a result. Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch