US War History
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I again state that Chamberlain's Peace in our Times speech I think he was blind to the fact that Germany was building up their army with only one goal in mind; revenge. Utter and total domination of Europe and then some. Hitler even wrote a book (2 volumes) about it when he got arrested for the first attempt to seize power. And it's also a bit peculiar that he was so blind for what was in store. Up until then, Europe had always been the subject of some crazy mans vision of total domination since the dawn of time. Europe was apparently not ready for peace at that time. Today it's a different story. Most of Europe is ready for peace and have been since world war 2. I think that war demonstrated quite clearly that war is not productive in any way. Europe was nothing but a rubble of rocks by 1945. Only a few states in the outer rims of Europe seems to think that war is an acceptable course of action (Yugoslavia et al). However, the EU is working strongly to prevent wars and to make Europe flourish in peace. So far I think it's progressing quite nicely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I agree there is more truth in this statement than I would like. But I can say the very same thing about France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world. Is there any question that they who had the most to financially lose also be the ones who were wanting the slowest course of action, be just a coincidence? I think not, but I try to understand that is part of the human race and not just a fault of the US. Agreed! But tell that to people who have managed to talk themselves into that this war is a charity campaign. It is not! And it freaks me out that some people actually believes this is the truth! What also bothers me is the constant "what's being done is for the greater good"-sentiment from the same crowd. Well here's a news flash for them - that's what the terrorists think too! There's a flaw in human nature as you point out. We're all a bunch of egoists with nothing but our own interests in focus. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
First, Thanks for the discussion. The day is starting over here and I likely will have to end with this. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Most of Europe is ready for peace and have been since world war 2. I have to disagree with you here. If you had said since mid 1980's yes but 1945-1980 I do not have that impression. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Most of Europe is ready for peace /cut/ Only a few states in the outer rims of Europe seems to think that war is an acceptable course of action Here is my conflict of the state of affairs we are in. Yes Europe is ready. But as you state out rims are not and go beyond Europe to Africa, Pakistan/India, South America, former Soviet states, snd they are definitely not in the same boat. Not to be offensive but I see a little arrogance on Europe’s part that now they have made the decision the world automatically and unilaterally agrees. It would be good if the world did but that is not the case. So for my self interests what do I try to persuaded my nation to do. Just ignore that part of the world that does look to armed conflict as the solution? I do not think I can. So I am really in a catch-22 situation. (A) We ignore it and our interests go to hell (along with thousands of innocent people to put the moral justification back in.) Or (B) try to act as a policeman knowing no matter what we do someone will hate us for it. But in the process try to see that a moral stance is used as guidance. For myself I have to say I only see B as the valid choice. I actually would like a 3rd option. That to be the UN be more open on accepting nations have a self interest. Freely put that on the table at diplomacy time and talk about what can be done to achieve those while being least offensive or invasive to others. But I think that just as much fantasy thinking than believing the whole world will decide on 1 Jan 2004 no more wars or killing will happen. :rose: "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
-
John Carson wrote: shows an astounding lack of perspective. No,it shows that we learned from history and Europe didn't.
Stan Shannon wrote: No,it shows that we learned from history and Europe didn't. Apparently it hasn't even learned its own history well enough to shown an appropriate degree of humility. As for the implied Hitler/Saddam analogy, I don't believe that even the Bush Administration believes it (however much it may want other people to believe it). A television documentary has unearthed footage from 2001 in which both Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice say that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained. A review: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082978207.html[^] The Powell comments from February 2001 (he made similar remarks in May 2001) can be found on the State Dept web site. He says: the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction...And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. State Dept Site[^] John Carson
-
The most common stance towards this that the US didn't want to stop a chance of the russian bear getting it's furry ass kicked. Some even go as far as claiming they were indecisive which side to take.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
peterchen wrote: Some even go as far as claiming they were indecisive which side to take. I regret I have but a single "1" vote for this statement. :mad: All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. What did it take the Americans? I think it was more like 28 months before they joined the "coalition of the willing." And then they only joined because they thought Hitler might win. Sure the Americans supported the war effort before joining it... but Canada had naval vessels in the Gulf supporting the America effort in Iraq. Plus we've contributed hundreds of million dollars to reconstruction of Iraq. Ok... I think Canada was wrong to sit on the sidelines. But would Hitler have been so bold if the US had been on side with the allies right from the start of WWII? As the jokes goes... we'd like to thank our American friends for coming to our aid in 1941... when we got in serious trouble in 1939. JM
It's completely useless to compare the actions of dead leaders in a different situation to the actions of leaders in office today. The only common ground in both scenarios is the names of the countries.
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: No,it shows that we learned from history and Europe didn't. Apparently it hasn't even learned its own history well enough to shown an appropriate degree of humility. As for the implied Hitler/Saddam analogy, I don't believe that even the Bush Administration believes it (however much it may want other people to believe it). A television documentary has unearthed footage from 2001 in which both Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice say that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained. A review: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082978207.html[^] The Powell comments from February 2001 (he made similar remarks in May 2001) can be found on the State Dept web site. He says: the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction...And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. State Dept Site[^] John Carson
There was a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war. While Saddam was effectively contained for now, he was still an extremely brutal dicator. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were worse by all measures, but Saddam was of the same ilk. I never liked the WMD argument since I've long believed (even before the first gulf war) that there was a valid humanitarian reason to overthrow Saddam's government. Bush overplayed that card. On the other hand, given the blind international eye turned to Rwanda, I understand why he used it. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
I don't dispute that the picture re the US from 1939 to 1941 was complicated and that various forms of support to the allies were offered at various levels. Even so, considering the nature of what the allies were opposing, the US response was sufficiently weak to disqualify it, in my opinion, from pointing the finger at Europe now. Joe Woodbury wrote: Whatever outrage there was (and there wasn't as much as some of you may have been led to believe) is not that France and Germany were reluctant to support the US and follow through with UN resolutions France, at least, voted for, but that they openly opposed the war to the point where some leaders indicated they hoped the US led coalition would lose. I don't need to be "led to believe". I can (and do) access various US news outlets on the web and several US news/current affairs programs air on Australian television (quite apart from the many reports on US affairs from news outlets of other countries). As for leaders indicating that they hoped the US led coalition would lose, I am unaware of any such case (at least among European leaders). Please provide details. John Carson
Re: the news I'm shocked, shocked that you put such legitimacy in the news as a genuine barometer of the sentiment of the electorate. John Carson wrote: Even so, considering the nature of what the allies were opposing, the US response was sufficiently weak to disqualify it, in my opinion, from pointing the finger at Europe now. I respectfully disagree. It is a poor comparison and, in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. (Yes, Russia was critical in this, but it was the US sending arms to Russia that made that possible.) Moreover, the US did not actively oppose the war effort by the allies. Were France, Germany and Russia to forgive Iraq it's considerable debt, I believe the US will allow them to bid on contracts. But there is no reason to allow them to profit on rebuilding Iraq while sacrificing nothing. John Carson wrote: As for leaders indicating that they hoped the US led coalition would lose, I am unaware of any such case (at least among European leaders). Please provide details. I don't have the time to search news archives, but I stand by my statement. (Note that I used the word "indicating", Chirac, et. al. did not say "It is my desire that the US loses". They did however make statement that were, using Rumsfeld's phrasing, "unhelpful." Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
John McIlroy wrote: When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. Technically it was September 3rd that Britain and France declared war on Germany. Canada declared war on September 10th. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Italy when it invaded Ethiopia in 1935? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when it invaded Austria in 1938? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when annexed Czechoslovakia in On March 15, 1939? No, they effectively gave Germany permission to do so. (Link[^]) Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Japan when they invaded China in 1937? No. In fact, with the exception of the US and Britain (because of Pearl Harbor) none of the Western powers ever declared war on Japan. (With the exception of the USSR which declared war on Japan after the Atomic bomb was dropped.) So, why didn't those enlightened Europeans declare war on Japan back in 1937? I'm guessing because "its an East Asian problem" - which isn't terribly different than the US saying "Nazi Germany is a European problem". I hardly think saying "Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours" (of Poland) is much of an argument when you realize that it was years after the invasion of Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. In short, England and France declared war only because war was obviously inevitable for them. Additionally, they had a pact with Poland. Canada was also part of the English Commonwealth and had only gained autonomy from England in 1931, so Canada was closely tied to England. They weren't acting out of any sort of moral enlightenment. The US didn't feel directly threatened and didn't jump into the war (which is exactly what England and France did when Germany and Italy were invading Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Ethiopia.) So, in that light, none of the Allied powers were jumping into World War 2 because of any sort of moral enlightenment. They all tried to avoid the war as long as they could, but it was inevitable. Arguably, then, World War 2 might be a lesson that none of the Western powers (including Canada, the US, England or France) went to war quickly enough. September 1st, 1939 i
This has been an intersting discussion. You make some good points. I was trying to draw some simplistic parallels. Britain declared war on Germany for only one reason... Hitler was a threat to Britain. Or perhaps it is better to say... Britain felt threatened by the German attack on Poland in a way that they didn't feel when Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and Austria were attacked. The parallel I was trying to draw here... is that when Britain felt threatened, Canada declared war on a defacto basis within 48 hours, although it might have taken longer to "do the paperwork." Yes Canada had allegiance to Britain, but it was then and is now a politially independent state. The degree of Canada's involvement in WWII was a hugely controversial issue on the home front. And my point is that even though Briatin felt threatened and Canada felt threatened... it took the US 28 months to join the "coalition of the willing." They only joined when they themselves felt threatened by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Don't get me wrong... I support the US actions in Iraq. If the US felt threatened by the political situation in Iraq, they had every right to do sonething about it. And Canada, as an ally, should have been right in there with the British, the Australians, and the Poles. The US has very little history as an oppressive imperialistic power. If it did, Canada as a country would not exist. If given a choice between backing the UN, backing the EU, or backing the US... I think Canada should have backed the US. But I just wanted to draw a simple parallel that when the US's allies felt deeply threatened by the Germans in WWII, it took the Americans 28 months to join the "coalition of the willing." So I think that the lectures of the US to Canada about a "friend being a friend" are a little patronizing, given the reluctance of the US to stand behind its allies in WWII until the US itself felt acutely threatened. JM
-
hey - that's not MY position. The max you can accuse me of is that I consider it "remotely possible".
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
JWood wrote: Invasion of Iraq is part of an economic war and a way to secure oil for the future. Thank you for acknowledging that. Who in their right mind would ever spend such a ridiculous amount of money on "liberating" a people, without getting something back in return (with interests)? Dalai Lama perhaps.. But Bush ain't no Dalai. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
Wonder how much oil 123 billion would buy ? Wonder how much oil is in Iraq ? Bush may not be the Dalai but he ain't no idiot either. Richard BTW: I give it at most 20 years before oil will be a secondary fuel source. So if you still make a claim for future oil reserves think again. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
The british guarantees on the polish borders came late, just months before the german invasion. IMO these guarantees were less an help to Poland than a warning to Hitler. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Is that not the part of the same answer I can give for the US action? Comparing Germany in 1939 with Middle-East in 2003 seems dubious to me. The third Reich invading Poland was a direct threat against Western democracies, but I don't think SH was ready or willing to strike the US in 2003.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
KaЯl wrote: but I don't think SH was ready or willing to strike the US in 2003 Nor was Hitler in 40 Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
Look at the bombing of London which was more or less continual and over 50,000 civilians died. The Russians lost millions of people and you hear barely a whimper out of them. The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations.
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
JWood wrote: The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations. What about Canada?
-
Wonder how much oil 123 billion would buy ? Wonder how much oil is in Iraq ? Bush may not be the Dalai but he ain't no idiot either. Richard BTW: I give it at most 20 years before oil will be a secondary fuel source. So if you still make a claim for future oil reserves think again. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
The average oil production in Iraq is roughly 1 million barrels per day according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html[^]. Right now the current price of a barrel of oil is at around $25. That means oil has to be pumped for 7200 days using the current barrel price, which is around 20 years. We can also assume that americans are more productive than Iraqis when it comes to oil. You could probably increase the productivity with 30%, which means you'll only have to pump for 15 years. Richard Stringer wrote: but he ain't no idiot either I bet the oil companies think he's a brilliant man. :) -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
Look at the bombing of London which was more or less continual and over 50,000 civilians died. The Russians lost millions of people and you hear barely a whimper out of them. The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations.
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
JWood wrote: The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations. Did you ever consider that the really hostile nations are where they are... because the US is two oceans away?? All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I again state that Chamberlain's Peace in our Times speech I think he was blind to the fact that Germany was building up their army with only one goal in mind; revenge. Utter and total domination of Europe and then some. Hitler even wrote a book (2 volumes) about it when he got arrested for the first attempt to seize power. And it's also a bit peculiar that he was so blind for what was in store. Up until then, Europe had always been the subject of some crazy mans vision of total domination since the dawn of time. Europe was apparently not ready for peace at that time. Today it's a different story. Most of Europe is ready for peace and have been since world war 2. I think that war demonstrated quite clearly that war is not productive in any way. Europe was nothing but a rubble of rocks by 1945. Only a few states in the outer rims of Europe seems to think that war is an acceptable course of action (Yugoslavia et al). However, the EU is working strongly to prevent wars and to make Europe flourish in peace. So far I think it's progressing quite nicely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I agree there is more truth in this statement than I would like. But I can say the very same thing about France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world. Is there any question that they who had the most to financially lose also be the ones who were wanting the slowest course of action, be just a coincidence? I think not, but I try to understand that is part of the human race and not just a fault of the US. Agreed! But tell that to people who have managed to talk themselves into that this war is a charity campaign. It is not! And it freaks me out that some people actually believes this is the truth! What also bothers me is the constant "what's being done is for the greater good"-sentiment from the same crowd. Well here's a news flash for them - that's what the terrorists think too! There's a flaw in human nature as you point out. We're all a bunch of egoists with nothing but our own interests in focus. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I think that war demonstrated quite clearly that war is not productive in any way. War is productive in the case where someone brings it to you and then you'd better be prepared and win. It's unfortunate that there's aways some perverse idiot who wants to be king of the world and persuades the unthinking to follow him. The new millenium doesn't seem to be producing any less of this type. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
It's completely useless to compare the actions of dead leaders in a different situation to the actions of leaders in office today. The only common ground in both scenarios is the names of the countries.
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
brianwelsch wrote: The only common ground in both scenarios is the names of the countries. Well, the obviously similar scenario is that you had a megalomaniac with tons of money and resources building a huge army and showing every intention that he was unwilling to stay in his own sandbox. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
brianwelsch wrote: The only common ground in both scenarios is the names of the countries. Well, the obviously similar scenario is that you had a megalomaniac with tons of money and resources building a huge army and showing every intention that he was unwilling to stay in his own sandbox. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote: showing every intention that he was unwilling to stay in his own sandbox. like the english, spanish, dutch and french imperialists? What I'm trying to say is that, considering the world is a much different place today economically, politically, militarily, technologically,.. the same game plan cannot be expected, so comparing US(or anyones) actions in different wars is apples and oranges.
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
-
Re: the news I'm shocked, shocked that you put such legitimacy in the news as a genuine barometer of the sentiment of the electorate. John Carson wrote: Even so, considering the nature of what the allies were opposing, the US response was sufficiently weak to disqualify it, in my opinion, from pointing the finger at Europe now. I respectfully disagree. It is a poor comparison and, in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. (Yes, Russia was critical in this, but it was the US sending arms to Russia that made that possible.) Moreover, the US did not actively oppose the war effort by the allies. Were France, Germany and Russia to forgive Iraq it's considerable debt, I believe the US will allow them to bid on contracts. But there is no reason to allow them to profit on rebuilding Iraq while sacrificing nothing. John Carson wrote: As for leaders indicating that they hoped the US led coalition would lose, I am unaware of any such case (at least among European leaders). Please provide details. I don't have the time to search news archives, but I stand by my statement. (Note that I used the word "indicating", Chirac, et. al. did not say "It is my desire that the US loses". They did however make statement that were, using Rumsfeld's phrasing, "unhelpful." Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: I'm shocked, shocked that you put such legitimacy in the news as a genuine barometer of the sentiment of the electorate. Sources of information on these matters basically come down to two --- personal contact and media reports (which include opinion polling). In almost all cases, an individual's personal contacts are limited and unrepresentative. Media reports are not fully representative either, but they are closer to it than personal experience. Moreover, when it comes to hostile attitudes to Europe, the attitudes that matter most are those of the politicians and other prominent figures. The media is the only practical source for these. Joe Woodbury wrote: in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. Only when it was attacked by Japan, an ally of Germany which then declared war on the US. Joe Woodbury wrote: Were France, Germany and Russia to forgive Iraq it's considerable debt, I believe the US will allow them to bid on contracts. But there is no reason to allow them to profit on rebuilding Iraq while sacrificing nothing. As I say in another post, I don't care about any of this as far as the economics of it goes. My only concern is for what it signifies about the intolerance of the US toward any disagreement with its foreign policy. Operating an explicit reward and punishment scheme is reasonable with respect to countries that are fundamentally hostile to you. It is inappropriate in relation to fundamentally friendly countries. By using a reward/punishment scheme across the board, the US signals that it doesn't believe it has any real allies. This belief will become self-fulfilling. There is an interesting NY Times piece (republished in the Sydney Morning Herald) on all of this: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125654433.html[^] Joe Woodbury wrote: I don't have the time to search news archives, but I stand by my statement. (Note that I used the word "indicating", Chirac, et. al. did not say "It is my desire that the US loses". They did however make statement that were, using Rumsfeld's phrasing, "unhelpful." Chirac made many statements in opposition to the Iraq war that Rumsfeld would reg
-
There was a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war. While Saddam was effectively contained for now, he was still an extremely brutal dicator. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were worse by all measures, but Saddam was of the same ilk. I never liked the WMD argument since I've long believed (even before the first gulf war) that there was a valid humanitarian reason to overthrow Saddam's government. Bush overplayed that card. On the other hand, given the blind international eye turned to Rwanda, I understand why he used it. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: There was a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war. While Saddam was effectively contained for now, he was still an extremely brutal dicator. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were worse by all measures, but Saddam was of the same ilk. I never liked the WMD argument since I've long believed (even before the first gulf war) that there was a valid humanitarian reason to overthrow Saddam's government. Bush overplayed that card. On the other hand, given the blind international eye turned to Rwanda, I understand why he used it. Even if I agreed with everything you said, it would not revive the "we learned from history and the Europeans didn't" argument. I agree in principle that overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime was justified on humanitarian grounds. However, bringing democracy/human rights to a country like Iraq is really difficult and a failed attempt can be more costly in terms of human suffering than not making the attempt. Accordingly, the attempt should only be made if 1. Achieving democracy/human rights is the number one priority for the invading force. 2. Extremely detailed planning has been made for achieving the transition to a new system of government. 3. The invading country has sufficient understanding of the invaded country to effectively manage the post-war era. 4. The invading country is willing to stay the course until its objective is met, whatever the cost. In my opinion, none of these conditions was met in relation to Iraq. There is some chance that it will turn out OK in the end in spite of this. But I consider this unlikely. I believe that, in one form or another, the Iraq conflict will go on for many years and the death doll (much of it from Iraqi-Iraqi conflict) is going to be very high. There was indeed "a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war" but I think the real story was roughly the opposite of what you claim. Bush did not focus on the WMD argument because he thought the humanitarian argument wouldn't fly (it worked for Clinton over Kosovo --- in the face of Republican opposition). Rather, he switched (partially) to the humanitarian argument when he found that the WMD (and terrorism) argument was struggling to get off the ground. The US has far too many allies that are gross violators of human rights for it to have a lot of credibility on this issue. Starting with the most important, I think the reasons for the war were as follows. 1. Many members of the Administration wanted to "finish the job" of the first Gul
-
JWood wrote: The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations. What about Canada?
Terry O`Nolley wrote: What about Canada? Canada?!? Either you're joking, or you don't know what "really hostile" means. Canada is not planning to blow us up - all they're doing is disagreeing with our foreign policy, which, as a sovereign nation, they have every right to do.
**"Worry not that no one knows of you; seek to be worth knowing." -- Confucius