Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Apology to USA"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    yeaaaaaaaaaah, and next time we will hang that leaf sideways.

    Comment


    • #17
      Sorry, MK. [img]/forum/images/smilies/frown.gif[/img] All the anti-American sentiment will breed an atmosphere of dislike between our nations. Canada can't throw stones at GWB without also taking a shot at all of us who support him. And the list of Americans who support him is rather long. Even that commie Dennis Miller supports him on the Iraq issue. It's quite a broad slice of Americans who do. After the war proves itself to have been so worthwhile the number of supporters will be even greater.

      Anyway, a preferred route of terrorists going to the US is through Canada. And we have to pay more for our prescriptions in the US so Canadians can get their's cheaper. If it wasn't for all the good SCI research going on up there these things would probably bother me more. But, Canada is all-in-all a really good neighbor and my list of complaints is pretty short. Hopefully, we can get past our differences this year and look forward to better times ahead.

      ~See you at the SCIWire-used-to-be-paralyzed Reunion ~
      ~See you at the CareCure-used-to-be-paralyzed Reunion ~

      Comment


      • #18
        canadians live in igloo's.

        Comment


        • #19
          PEACE FOR OUR TIME

          Alistair Cooke..
          I promised to lay off topic A - Iraq - until the Security Council makes
          a judgment on the inspectors' report and I shall keep that
          promise.

          But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight I've listened
          to everybody involved in or looking on to a monotonous din of
          words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach - making a great
          noise and saying the same thing over and over. And this
          ordeal triggered a nightmare - a day-mare, if you like.

          Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English voice of an
          old man - Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: "I believe it
          is peace for our time" - a sentence that prompted a huge cheer, first
          from a listening street crowd and then from the House of
          Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land. There was a move
          to urge that Mr Chamberlain should receive the
          Nobel Peace Prize.

          In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: "I
          believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat." He
          was, in view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down.

          This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 the British prime minister's
          effectual signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
          The rest of it, within months, Hitler walked in and conquered. "Oh
          dear," said Mr Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has betrayed my
          trust."

          During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought occurred to me
          --every single official, diplomat, president, prime minister
          involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them unborn.
          So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been
          remembered by most listeners.

          Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but only two years
          before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty by
          occupying the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland. Only half his troops
          carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that
          French morale was too low to confront any war just then and 10 million
          of 11 million British voters had signed a so-called peace
          ballot. It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply counted
          the numbers of Britons who were "for peace".

          The slogan of this movement was "Against war and fascism" - chanted at
          the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many
          moderate Conservatives - a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as
          "against hospitals and disease". In blunter words a majority of
          Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler
          except fight him.

          At that time the word pre-emptive had not been invented, though today
          it's a catchword. After all the Rhineland was what it said it
          was - part of Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out would have
          been pre-emptive - wouldn't it?

          Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with confidence to
          gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country -
          "course by course", as growler Churchill put it.

          I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was fully grown, on the
          verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age of
          anxiety. And so many of the arguments mounted against each other today,
          in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the
          House of Commons debates and read in the French press.

          The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, "negotiation,
          negotiation". They negotiated so successfully as to have
          their whole country defeated and occupied. But as one famous French
          leftist said: "We did anyway manage to make them declare
          Paris an open city - no bombs on us!"

          In Britain the general response to every Hitler advance was disarmament
          and collective security. Collective security meant to leave
          every crisis to the League of Nations. It would put down aggressors,
          even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or
          air force. The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when
          Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia). The
          League didn't have any shot to fire. But still the cry was chanted in
          the House of Commons - the League and collective security is
          the only true guarantee of peace.

          But after the Rhineland the maverick Churchill decided there was no
          collectivity in collective security and started a highly unpopular
          campaign for rearmament by Britain, warning against the general belief
          that Hitler had already built an enormous mechanized
          army and superior air force.
          But he's not used them, he's not used them - people protested.

          Still for two years before the outbreak of the Second War you could read
          the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at
          the famous Labour men -Major Clement Attlee was one of them - who voted
          against rearmament and still went on pointing to the
          League of Nations as the savior.

          Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the present
          crisis. It haunts me. I have to say I have written elsewhere with
          much conviction that most historical analogies are false because,
          however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one,
          there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the
          crucial one. It may well be so here.

          All I know is that all the voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003...

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Not bad for a guy who's 94 years old.

          [This message was edited by Jeff on 03-11-03 at 06:57 PM.]

          Comment

          Working...
          X