Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know you can do better than that Rex. I have supported the the President for the most part on the Iraq issue and even I can see some inconsistancies in a few things. But this is what you bring up as an example of him lying? Please. There would have been a vote if the French had not expressly stated they would veto it. If you don't understand what that means for UN purposes a security council veto stops a resolution before it even comes to a vote. So you can't blame Bush for their being no vote on a second resolution.

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well I wanted to stay on topic:

He lied about going AWOL.
He lied about being arrested for drunk driving.
He stole money doing insider trading when he was with Harken oil (don't say it's old news the Last president was hounded about white water and the time frames were equivalent).

Those are just some things off the top of my head. Some people were trying to make Bush out as some honourable character when he is a politician looking to get elected.

[ May 13, 2003, 02:47: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree, at least in the States most people that are against action in Iraq are Bush haters, partisan politics if you will. The same thing happened with the Clinton haters. Outside the USA, I cant say since I am biased http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif


Some of the things it is about is


here is my SPIN http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

International law-- Yep, Saddam broke it for over 12 years, and time might well tell that France, Germany and Russia broke International law by selling prohibited items to Iraq. Oh, and dont forget the UNs involvement (or lack there of).

deceit-- Yep, Saddam deceived us for many years, but more importantly he deceived his own people by refusing them food and other things. We can add deceit from the above countries and the UN, time will tell on that (of course people will believe that the US had it planted) maybe that is a reason why they were against the Coalition for fear what they would find that would incriminate them.

War-- Yep, people forgot Saddam started it first, you all do remember Kuwait, and there was never an end to that, Saddam had to follow the rules which he never did.

Incompetence-- Yes the UN was Incompetent, and we will find more of what they refused to see (or deal with). I am not anti UN, but think they need to follow through with the resolutions they pass, and I am not talking about just Iraq situation. Of course if the UN did their job, the US wouldn't have to be the bad guy.

WMD-- ok, ok I still say we need to wait. But I am sure the trailers of chemical processing plants we for something other than what we in the US think it is. Maybe they were actually roving baby milk factories.

International alliances-- See the above comment about the UN. Did anyone notice that the leaders of the former Soviet Union countries supported the Coalition (the ones that were recently admitted to the UN). I think those leaders know exactly what it was like to live in a country where the people have no power/life. Don't tell me they were coerced to give lip service to the US, they would have benefited more by not getting the EU mad at them.

As I finish this, I realize that many people have different views on this situation. Will we all agree, no way, if we did, everyone would love us Americans. The nice thing is we don't seem to get into name calling ect... Heck, I even cut slack for them French Canadians that don't agree with us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif J/K

Ok, now all lets have a group hug!!!

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

*group hug* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Narrew, some of the stuff you have talked about, I agree with and some I don't.

But why is the U.N. incompetent?

IMO, it is basically because of the veto power wielded by certain nations...won't say who they are because we know who they are. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Give it a secure tax base with every nation having a right to vote on a democratic basis according to its population, then issues will be decided and you will have an organization with the capacity to act.

This is not strange to us, because our governments are organized this way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And China will probably agree to it. But I can see the U.S. government doing everything in its power to prevent it from happening.

Anybody care to guess why?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Tbontob, that idea is just ludicrous. If every nation in the UN had a representative form of government, perhaps. But why would I as a citizen of a free and democratic (Sorry Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) soceity give control over myself and my affairs to a hand full of dictators under the auspices of UN authority? They aren't held accountable to their own populations, how could they be to me?

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

When the thirteen colonies rebelled you had much the same discussion going on. Why exchange one dictator (the King of England) for another dictator (a central government)?

As it happened, the central government idea prevailed, a stable tax system secured, representative government installed and you have the U.S. of A. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The same thing can happen here if we have the foresight.

But O.K. for the sake of the discussion, let's exclude dictatorial governments. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Why would the U.S. government do everything in its power to prevent a "U.N. of Democracies" with a stable tax base and vote by representation?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

One unified world government would not be a good idea at all. If there are no external enemies (not necessarily in open conflict or anything like that) for the government to concentrate on, it turns on its own people. This is an inescapable fact of life on earth.

[ May 13, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, for one thing, why do you make the U.S. out to be the lone country in opposition to this idea? Isn't the American Hegemony, or "Pax Americana" the big thing everyone, even our allies, are worried about these days? How is this different? Instead of the American hegemony it's the UN hegemony. I seriously doubt you would get a single nation, even democratic ones to agree to this idea. It's that bad of an idea Tbontob. So since it's your idea, why don't you tell me why Canada would be opposed to it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif And if all the Democratic nations on earth became one "super country", wouldn't the non-democratic countries be that much more afraid of it?

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

All it takes is a visionary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If the U.S. didn't have it's visionaries you wouldn't have the U.S. of A. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yes, there would be serious discussion about it in Canada, both pro and con, but I don't believe that Canada would be as determined in it's opposition to it's creation.

Care to guess the reason why?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

No, why don't you just tell us why Tbontob?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I'll just wait for other opinions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There is no rush to conclude this discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I am sure there are a lot of people out there who know why.

So far it has just been you and me. Others should have the opportunity to participate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

As I understand the Canadian Legislature, you have a greater house where representatives, Senators I believe, come from districts and districts are formed based on population. From this, the larger centers of population basically control this body: more people means more representatives, means more votes. If I recall correctly, your second legislative body is a rubber-stamp institution, whose members are chosen by government from the government.

Tbontob, you seem to live in 'Western Canada'. Last I heard, most folks in the under populated West were generally displeased with this imbalance of power. Not to say they don't like being Canadians, but I've not heard once say they like the "yahoos in the East" making all their decisions for them.

Maybe this isn't the case anymore. Maybe you aren't that into national politics. Maybe I'm just dead wrong.

But in the U.S., both bodies of legislature have power, neither plays the rubber stamp because they tend to have different priorities, even if they are held by the same party.

Members of the Senate, Senators, do not represent specific amounts of the population, they are more creatures of geography: each State gets two, even Wyoming. Additionally, Senators serve a term of six years, giving them greater time to accomplish their goals and more leverage than a member of the lower house. This allows local interests to carry weight, to some degree, on a national level.

Members of the House of Representatives, called Representatives in another great show of creativity, are elected by specific quantities of the population: more people means more Representatives. For this reason Wyoming has only one, while California has something like fifty-three.

Both houses must agree on a bill before it can be passed into law.

This sort of balance between population and geography is one of the things that makes the U.S. the unstable wreck of a government that it is and this balance is not, if I recall correctly, duplicated anywhere else in the world. You're not going to get another country to pick up this model, and you're not going to get the Americans to give it up. The differences in our governments are just one of the reasons the vaste majority of Americans don't strongly favor international administrative bodies.

Next week, we can cover the peculiarities of the American Judicial System.

P.S. Any Canadians or Americans who feel that I do not understand their government are invited to educate me, in this thread or a PM. I will be attentive.

[Edi: Necessary quotes added to indicate a quotation. Thanks, Narrew.]

[ May 13, 2003, 18:47: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Tbontob, you giving an answer does not end the discussion, it helps continue it.

And I think you guys missed my post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Quick note on populations.

Canada has approximately thirty-three million people.

The U.S. has approximately two hundred eighty-five million people.

The State of California has more people in it than all of Canada. I hope, for Canada's sake, that this new world government does not lean heavily on population (like a democracy would), to make it's decisions.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is precisely why the government was set up that way. The longer it takes and the harder it is to get anything done, the less likely a tyranny will be able to take over the government.

[ May 13, 2003, 18:34: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is the second time you said that, dont keep us in supense http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif , unless you really dont know the answer to your question, but I think your stringing us along, your such a tease http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I will tell you later about my UN thoughts, have to go do some things, so hold on for a bit.

Ohh, I got a chuckle when I noticed that your from WESTERN Canada http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

hey Loser, them "yahoos in the East" you mentioned are actually French nationalists trying to get a foothold back on this part of the world http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Group HUG

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

That's one of the reasons, I must confess. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The other reason was as stipulated...to give others the time and opportunity to state their opinions.

And if someone gets it right on the money, all I have to say is "Bingo"! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Just so I will not be deluged with abuse, I am using "Bingo" in the sense that it is my opinion too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

EDIT: Fyron I may have misinterpreted your statement and assumed that you omitted to put an extra "not" in it.

[ May 13, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: tbontob ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didnt, I need to run, but I will amke a quick comment. If we became a one world goverment, then it wouldnt be illegal to get the mexicans up here to mow my lawn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif (I am just freaking kidding folks, I like stirring the pot, cant help it, I was born this way).

Ok, this would take it more off topic, but I think we could agree if for some reason WE (someone in the world) decided to make space eXploration/eXploitation/eXpansion, what would be better a 1 world goverment or multi-nationals racing out there? I dont think we would turn on each other if we had something to keep us busy out there.

Grr, I have to go

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I had an extra be in it because I changed the wording mid-sentence and forgot to remove it, but that is all.

The only thing that would make a good unified world government feasible would be great threat from alien lifeforms. But since it is impossible for stellar empires to expand beyond a single star system, that isn't a concern in reality. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 13, 2003, 18:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

To Rex, regarding the President:

Regarding the "Bush was AWOL", from National Guard Magazine
"the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." The review was done by Georgemag.com, the Online Version of the magazine founded by the late John F. Kennedy Jr. Guardsmen say Bush's service record is not unusual."

I'll note as a veteran myself that nobody I ever heard of that went AWOL got an honorable discharge.

Regarding he "lied about drunken driving", from Robert A. George
of the New York Post, 11/3/00:

"There is no evidence yet that Bush has lied about this incident. And, of course, for the boomer media, the actions matter little; the chief question is, Did the individual lie or dissemble? In truth, it seems that Bush was pretty aboveboard in his handling of it. In this post-Clinton moment, the principal lesson we are asked to accept is that Dubya was "straightforward" about his past. This columnist would have preferred hearing about this incident a year ago — and coming from the Republican candidate himself."

It appears you are 0-2 so far about the President lying, and it gets better:

he "lied about Harken", from columnist Byron York:

"In June 1990, Bush sold two-thirds of his stake — 212,000 shares — at $4 for a total price of $848,000. At the time of the sale, Harken was moving into a period of financial difficulties. In the months following Bush's sale, the company announced a quarterly loss and the stock price went into a long, slow decline; by the end of 1990, it was $1.25 a share."

However, York goes on to state:

"Bush denies any wrongdoing and has often said he was unaware of the difficulties within Harken. "He thought he was selling into good news," spokeswoman Karen Hughes told The American Spectator, adding that if Bush had waited to sell the stock he could have earned considerably more than he got. That would, however, have required his waiting at least a year; it was not until June 1991 that Harken got back up to $4 a share. By September 1991 it briefly hit $8 a share.
In 1991 the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated the sale and took no action against Bush or anyone else. "I don't remember a lot about it, other than there wasn't a lot about it," says William McLucas, who was the SEC enforcement chief at the time. "The facts just didn't support any judgment that this was something that would result in a serious enforcement proceeding." "

So he sold in June '90 for $4, it went as low as $1.25 in Dec. '90, but by Sep. '91 it was over $8.
I fail to see a problem here, unless it was that he sold too early. Also note the statement from the SEC.

Perhaps you should investigate things a little more closely before repeating things to find out if they're really true.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

We Americans struggle constantly with the balance between a cetralized and decentralized government. We even fought a civil war at least partly because of it. Very few people that don't live in Washington D.C. really honestly believe that the government in Washington has our best interests as their main priority. The Fedeal government for the most part is something we tolerate. It's a nessecary evil because only a strong central government is able to do the things that individual towns/cities/states can't do, like defend us from invasion by the Canadians. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I can't imagine we would ever peacefully hand over the reigns to some world body. We have a hard enough time trusting our own federal government.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Yep Geoschmo, we Canadians are nasty. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Been a long time since I was in grade school, but IIRC, we (terrible, awful, disgusting <====pick your adjective) Canadians burnt your White House.

War of 1812 or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

You'd likely do better, tbontob, by pointing out that you took part of Maine, then Massachusetts, and never gave it back.

But back then you weren't even Canadians: you were just Loyalists. And I seem to remember that most of the 'Canadian' contingent in that conflict were exiled loyalists from the thirteen colonies.

But enough history. Geo was not Canadian-bashing. If anyone was it was me. No one has pointed out if I am mistaken about how your government works, so this makes it even less likely anyone was attacking Canada.

(And I wasn't bashing Canada, I was only trying to illustrate a point.)
[Edit:And that point was not that the U.S. government was better, just that it was very different.]

[ May 13, 2003, 20:29: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Loser, I never felt Geoschmo was bashing Canada in the Last post. If anything, I felt it was an attempt to ease the tension a bit. That enabled me to joke about us Canadians in return. Us terrible psuedo-Vikings to the north. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And yes you did have inaccuracies in your post about Canada. And I could have posted corrections, but felt it was much better if others got involved. And if the inaccuracies were not corrected, so what? It would not be the end of the world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Terribly sorry that I misread you.

If you would correct me in a PM, if not in this thread, I would appreciate it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Tbontob, deliberately withholding information is not a good way to hold a discussion. Most people do not want to get involved in this thread, and you aren't going to convince them to do so.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ooops, my sincere apologies.

When I posted, I did not realize I would be embarrassing you. I was just trying to correct what I perceived to be an irroneous impression.

Sometimes I have to think longer before I yak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, Tbontob, you succeded and got me involved
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Pseudo-vikings?
If IRC the vikings left Canada and abandonded their colony there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, Tbontob, you succeded and got me involved
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Pseudo-vikings?
If IRC the vikings left Canada and abandonded their colony there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heh heh. Not the kind of involvement I was hoping for, but OK.

Yes, they did. In Newfoundland or was it Labrador?

There is evidence of other Viking settlements but not as conclusive yet.

Anyways, let's put what I thought was funny into some sort of perspective.

In the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, the Vikings terrorized most of Europe. They were mostly, peoples from Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Usually, they struck hard and quickly, creating mayhem, taking slaves/hostages, booty and often destroying much of what they didn't take.

They were the bane of Europe and parents would often frighten their children into good behaviour by saying the Vikings would take them if they were not good. Kind of the modern day boogey-man.

Now Geoschmo spoke of an invasion from the Canadians. The Canadians live in the North. The Vikings also lived in the north.

The Vikings often burnt what they didn't take. The Canadians burnt the white house.

To even think that the Canadians are as determined, dedicated, strong, combative, rapine destroyers of peoples and hearth and home as the Vikings is so ludicrous that it is hilarious. At least it is to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So, that's the joke. Us pretentious Canadians thinking the Americans are quivering in their boots and ready to panic at the slightest hint we may invade their soveriegn territory like the Vikings did to the Britain, France and many other countries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Is it me or this thread have become so politically correct that even the jokes have to be explained to avoid missunderstandings?

Come on, we should always assume the best from any post.
If is only me, then don't pay attention to this post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

tbontob: Perhaps I could volunteer my services as the Canadian Minister of Information.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I only said that I was joking cause I was in a hurry, and fairly new here that perhaps not everyone knows my sense of humor. Also here in the US, politically correctness has went so far the we never know when we will be sued for saying something that will offend someone.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think Bagdad Bob got that job http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Ok, all this talk is making me want to go to the video store and rent Canadian Bacon again. That movie was hilarious. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ooops, my sincere apologies.

When I posted, I did not realize I would be embarrassing you. I was just trying to correct what I perceived to be an irroneous impression.

Sometimes I have to think longer before I yak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's not the way i meant that. I am not embarrassed. I just wanted to know how the Canadian legislative system works, if I got it wrong. If you were not going to correct my description of it in this thread, I still wanted to know.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Quick question to all those who don't think too highly of Bush: do you have anything to say about John McCain?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, here's the problem with this anti-Bush stuff all over the web. This guy with the talion site is a perfect example. His very first "example" of Bush lying was this quote:


Date: 08/19/88 Houston Chronicle article by R. G. Ratliffe
When running for governor, George W. Bush portrayed himself to voters as a great fighter pilot. "Asked how he got into the Air National Guard, Bush said, ‘They could sense I was going to be one of the great pilots of all time.’”

I mean, come on. This is so obviously intended as as self-depreciating humor by Bush. Whether you believe his personality is genuine, or it's all contrived showmanship to win the folksy hearts and minds, it's obvious to anyone with a brain when someone is poking fun with a reporter and when someone is making a serious statement that he intends to be taken seriously.

The fact that this web site author chose this quote with out any sort of attempt at putting it in context makes his intentions and lack of judgment crystal clear. By doing so he colors his entire site and tends to make someone viewing it with a skeptical attidude take it that much less seriously.

He has a lot of raw information here, but much of it requires an understanding of standard military procedures to be able to anylze it and weigh it correctly. He wants the uninformed reader to trust his analysis of that information, yet he leads off with what can only be termed as either a historic level of cluelessness, or outright dishonesty on his part. Not very smart IMHO, but unfortunatly very typical.

Geoschmo

[ May 14, 2003, 15:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

There is a quote, and I don't remember who it's by or the exact wording, but it goes something like this. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I fear the same could be said of journalism and the internet. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And just like all the crappy novels and non-fiction works out there, people do read it, buy into it, and ceaselessly talk about it.

This is a general response to Geo's more detailed analysis. I did not even read that site. This is not about that specific site, or about any specific situation, just a nice, broad, open generalization. (just so you know, if you cared)

[edit: Just wanted to make it clear I didn't mean this about any one person.]

[ May 14, 2003, 16:22: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The problem won't get any better. It's too easy for people, and I mean no offense to Tesco by this cause people on both sides of the debate do it, to throw those links out there in a discussion like this. It can be carefully qualified with "I don't know how accurate this is, but he brings up some interesting points doesn't he?". Who cares if the information is unverified, out of context, incomplete, or outright fabrication. It's interesting, and it seems to support my preconceived notions, so I am going ot use it. I can't be held accountable to it because, after all, I didn't write it. Hell, I didn't even read most of it. I merely posted a link to it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Never heard of....

(Or was it the lead character in the Die hard trilogy?)

[ May 14, 2003, 16:35: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Never heard of....

(Or was it the lead character in the Die hard trilogy?)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No no no, that's McClane. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
And you have to say that with a suitable Alan Rickman vague Eurosomething-accent.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Never heard of....

(Or was it the lead character in the Die hard trilogy?)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's kind of nice. At least non-U.S.-residents aren't all aware of all the details of the U.S. political scene.

It often surprises me that you all are aware of the names of some of our states. I don't know that I could even name a city in Sweden, but Ruatha mostly like knows a thing or two about Texas, California, and maybe even Utah.

Wait.. I might have one... Is Helsinki in Sweden?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, we've all been brought up on US TV, US films, US values... this is why there is such a strong anti-american sentiment out there. People feel their own cultures and ways of life are being drowned under a flood of US imports.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope, but not so bad after all though.
It was in Sweden until 1809 IIRC, then we lost it to Russia in one of our Last wars, now it's Finlands capital!
(The Last one we fought was 1814)

My big sister was a Donny Osmond fan so I know some of Utah. I've seen Dallas, a soap from Texas. And one of the Die hard movies was in california right?

Se I know aaaaaalll about the US, and it's all based on fact!

[ May 14, 2003, 17:15: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah... Just not sure why anyone in the U.S. should feel responsible for the importing habits of people in other parts of the world.

Those other people like the U.S. stuff, the U.S. likes (really, really likes) selling its stuff. This is win-win.

There's a big gap in understanding here, so I'd guess that I'm missing something. If you could help me out here, I'd much appreciate it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ooops, my sincere apologies.

When I posted, I did not realize I would be embarrassing you. I was just trying to correct what I perceived to be an irroneous impression.

Sometimes I have to think longer before I yak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's not the way i meant that. I am not embarrassed. I just wanted to know how the Canadian legislative system works, if I got it wrong. If you were not going to correct my description of it in this thread, I still wanted to know.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Loser http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

When I read this, I was really confused.

Like you are not embarrassed by want a private message?

Upon reflection, I am guessing you were trying to give me an option. At least I hope it is because if not there is a serious communication gap here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Well, you would be right to say I am not into national politics.

Probably the best the place to start is to have some idea of our history.

It’s been a while since I’ve learned this stuff, so I may be a bit vague in some areas.

Prior to the American Revolution, our country was defeated by the British on the Plains of Abraham just outside of Quebec, Quebec. (Forget the date).

At the time it was totally French, although the Hudson’s Bay Company operated out of the Hudson Bay under a British Royal Charter of 1671. They owned Rupertsland which was an enormous area as it encompassed all the lands within which the rivers drained into the Hudsons Bay.

When the Americans revolted, a large number of loyalists came and settled in what was then Upper Canada (Ontario), Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

As a result, there were resentments and conflicts between the French and the loyalists. The reasons were many, but basically,
1) Different language
2) Different customs.
3) Different religions
4) Different laws - Quebec had civil law which is derived from Napoleonic Law which I understand has it’s basis in Roman Law. In contrast the rest of Canada, like the U.S. had common law which had its origins in British common law which in turn is based on precedent.

Understandably, the French speaking Canadians did not want their culture to be submerged within the culture of the loyalists.

Various acts were passed by the British Parliament which attempted to deal with the issue, none of them really effective.

Finally, on July 1,1867 (Canada’s official birthday), the British North America Act was passed by Britain which officially created Canada and
1) Gave the right to Canadians to govern themselves internally. Foreign relations/policy was retained by Britain.
2) Created a Federal Government.
3) Specifically stated the rights, powers and privileges of the provinces and the Federal Government.
4) Basically enshrined the right to enact laws governing language, customs, laws and religion to the provinces.

The original four signatories were Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Somewhat like your 13 colonies. : )

In 1931, Britain passed the statute of Westminster by which Canada and the other dominions obtained the right to make its own laws regarding its foreign relations such as making treaties etc.

Numerous other statutes had been passed, but those are the main ones. As compared to the U.S. Canada’s growth to maturity has been slow and gradual and accounts for some of the differences between our systems.

From here on, I will limit myself to the Federal government, although the provincial governments generally have an equivalent structure.

Federally, Canada has three branches of Government:
1) Executive Branch comprised of the Prime minister, his Cabinet and the public service.
2) Legislative Branch comprised of the Governor General, the House of Commons and the Senate.
3) Judicial Branch

Canada can be described as a constitutional monarchy, a federation and a democracy all rolled into one.

Even though Canada is completely sovereign from Britain, the Queen is our head of state. But as the Queen is above politics, she does not tell us what to do.

But saying that, technically, all the rights and powers and privileges of the three branches of Canadian government flow from the Crown.

As the Queen cannot be here in person, she is represented by the Governor General to whom she has delegated her powers. These powers are largely symbolic and ceremonial but do play a part in the functioning of our government.

The Governor General is the Head of State (as opposed to the head of government which is the Prime Minster). The Prime Minister selects the Governor General and submits his selection to the Queen who formally makes the appointment, usually for 5 years.

In the 19th century, the Governor Generals tended to be Britains. This changed in the Last century when most if not all Governor Generals were Canadians.

The prime minister and his cabinet basically propose new laws and amendments to existing ones. These then go to the House of Commons where it is extensively debated and if passed, goes to the Senate.

The prime minister has the right to appoint members to the Senate. In theory, the Senate is supposed to be a part of the checks and balances to ensure the government will not act improperly. If it feels a bill would be extremely offensive, it has the right to send it back to the House of Commons for further reconsideration. IIRC, it can only do this three times at which time it will pass into law.

It is well know that the prime minister will often reward a political friend by appointing him to the senate. It is a lifetime appointment although it expires when the senator reaches age 75.

At times, the senate has become a topic of great controversy. There is the general perception, that it serves little real purpose. While it may be politically aligned to the government, which has been in power the longest, the only real power it has IMO is to send a bill back to the House of Commons three times…a power it has seldom exercised.

It should be noted however, that on the few occasions, the Senate did send a bill back to the House of Commons for reconsideration; the country did sit up and take notice.

Bills to abolish the Senate or amend it have not gone anywhere and the Senate is perceived by many Canadians to be a form of pension or retirement home. : )

The House of Commons is comprised of elected representatives and are aligned according to political Groups. Currently we have 10 registered political parties of which 5 have members (MP’s) in parliament

The party which has the most representatives elected in an election gets to form the next government. If it has less than 50% of the members, it will be called a “minority government” and is unlikely to remain in power long as a successful “no-confidence” vote or the failure of a vote on a major bill will bring it down. Even a government with a bare majority can be brought down as members don’t always vote as they “should” and some members have been known to cross party lines. A government with a solid “majority” can normally expect to remain in power until it decides to call the next election which must be within 5 years.

I do not have a lot of knowledge about electoral districts, so I could be wrong about a point or two.

House of Commons representatives (Members of Parliament or MP’s) are elected from districts. Currently I believe we have just over 300. Districts may created, destroyed or modified after each census. There is a complicated formula, which is partly defined by the BNA Act, but basically, as I understand it, the aim is to have districts of the same population size. So, you will not get something like one district having 10,000 voters and another having 100,000.

Some districts may be small geographically like metropolitan Toronto, and large if it is a dispersed farming community. But whatever their physical size, the aim is to have districts of equal populations within their boundaries.

Since most of Canada’s population lives in urban populations, most of the MP’s come from the cities and large towns.

About western dissatisfaction, the reasons are numerous and diverse. I don’t claim to know them all but will mention a few.

Alberta in particular was unhappy for economic reasons because the Federal government imposed a special tax on gas and oil when prices were high. At the time Alberta was the only major producer of oil and gas in the country. The effect was to substantially reduce its revenues.

The Federal government also redistributed the wealth from the richer provinces to the poorer one. British Columbia and Alberta being richer provinces were somewhat unhappy about it but IMO their objections were somewhat subdued because there was a politically correct element about it all. Understandably this was not an issue with Saskatchewan or Manitoba as they were recipients of these payments.

All four western provinces felt that the Federal government was not listening to their complaints. In part, Ottawa was focused upon Quebec and it’s bid for seccession. So, I suspect they took a page out of Quebec’s book and started talking seccession too. It did get Ottawa’s attention and cause it to pay more attention to them and not just assume they would go along with whatever Ottawa decides.

I don’t feel seccession was really a major issue in Western Canada, but it could have become one if Ottawa didn’t listen to the issues they felt were important. To its credit, Ottawa realized this and did pay more attention to the western provinces.

Also, any change to the constitution requires the agreement of all the provinces.

Having very upset western provinces means no changes to the constitution.

Hope this helps you and is what you want.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was raised on Benny Hill and Absoluty Fabulous http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif No wonder I am messed up.

Ok, seriously. Whos fault is it for the imports? Its not like we are dropping propaganda from our bombers to smother you in our way of life. We are a capitalist country, if you dont buy, you aint going to get this stuff for free! The argument that the US is smothering other countries is absurd. An example I can think of is Japan. They eat up western movies and other items, but are still respectfull of their society (even if they are wearing blue jeans).

I respectfully disagree.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was raised on Benny Hill and Absoluty Fabulous http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif No wonder I am messed up.

Ok, seriously. Whos fault is it for the imports? Its not like we are dropping propaganda from our bombers to smother you in our way of life. We are a capitalist country, if you dont buy, you aint going to get this stuff for free! The argument that the US is smothering other countries is absurd. An example I can think of is Japan. They eat up western movies and other items, but are still respectfull of their society (even if they are wearing blue jeans).

I respectfully disagree.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Disagree all you want but DS has a valid point there.
No matter the reasons many feel that the anglo-american influence is too strong.
The US capitalistic system produces too much to cheap.

So, please raise your prices, cut production and reduce the quality, then we can all get along nicely!