Obama All About Helicopters

[transquebecniece]

You know me too well, Twinnie.

 

Sorry, Splitty. This week of non-stop work and politicin' done wore me out; I went in search of the nearest watered-down, p*ss-poor American beer I could find. This pitiful economy won't allow me to afford that good Canadian stuff. HA! You best watch out for them there Big Macs; they'll get your *ss or your arteries, whichever comes first!

 

Nice to see some non-combative, intelligent and non-arrogant posts here (mine excluded, of course).

 

Like it or not, we're all in this together.

 

L3...no disrespect to your father...I'm sure he is/was a wonderful man. But that comment sits about as well as recent accusations that all current U.S. military signing bonuses for our (volunteer) military forces are a deliberate attempt to send all of our poor and unfortunate Hispanic/African-American/Ethnic-Minority boys/girls to war right now. Sorry; holds no water. Need proof. Or not. Again, no disrespect to your father. Dads rock!

[Freefall]

Yea I'm not buying it L3

[5Lgreenback]

Hitler. 9-11. Bin Laden. Hussein. Ahmadinejad. Kim Jong-Il. Did America ever say, "He's your problem...this great threat to civilization...you stop him...you deal with it?"

 

I was half laughing through gritted teeth when I made that post earlier; it was the first thread I'd read. Overly sensitive? Perhaps. A bellyful of American bashing and politics, definitely.

 

Sorry if I offended anyone with my juvenile retort. Try to see the bigger picture.

 

What was this thread about anyway?

 

Oh, yeah. What will Obama do to perk up the heli industry, or ANY industry, for that matter? Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

 

Done and carry on! (It must be 5:00 o'clock somewhere!)

 

Hitler-many countries dealed with him, long before americans got involved. And most text books (with the exception of american texts) argue that it was the Russians who brought WWII to an end not the US.

 

Bin Laden-was armed and able to achieve power through american help, and he hates America, so Id say yes its mostly Americans responsibly to deal with him. The Taliban stated they were more than willing to give up Osama if America would provide them with evidence of his guilt, the FBI openly admitted it cant be proven. So the war began and countless innocent lives have been lost for this 1 man.

 

Hussien- Evil man yes, brought to power by the Americans, killed 300,000 innocent people which was extremely ruthless, but many forget to mention the Americans were behind the scenes giving him suppport, according to some knowing full well what he was doing. Americans have killed anywhere from 500,000- 1,000,000 (depending on the reports) mostly innocent people in Iraq. Iraq is now in shambles and civil war and far worse off than when Hussein was in power. While the riots were happening in Iraq and everyting got destroyed, people being killed raped etc. American soliders where told not to intervene, and the only the they are to protect is the ministry of oil.

 

By the way Im not trying to slam americans believe it or not, I dont for 1 second think canadians are much different just much less powerfull and much less in the spotlight. Its western socities in general that are by far the biggest evil do-ers throughout the world. The media does a really amazing job at keeping us from our discussing real issues and our own actions throughout world. This so called "war on terrorism" is a pretty big contradiction.

 

[Over-Talk]

QUOTE 5Lgreenback;

"Hussien- Evil man yes"

 

Which Hussein are you referring to ???

After all, that is the middle name of the new President-elect of the United States of America.....

Ooooohhh, it's all so confusing.

 

If it wasn't for all the Husseins, Obamas, Osamas, Kennedys, Clintons, and Bushs it would be easier.

 

Then Cap starts talking about King Faisal in Iraq....but I thought he was Saudi......ooooohhhh, the OTHER King Faisal.

 

YEEESHH, I need a drink.

[arctic_front]

As many people think this is a war for oil, I'll play along and maybe give some ideas as to why an oil-war was needed.

 

Regardless of who was in there doing the war-fighting, the main point of it was not to 'steal' the oil, as America was being accused of, but rather the need to protect the source and supply.

 

Look how we all moaned about high oil and gas prices not too long ago. Imagine if any one of the middle east oil producing countries had their delivery(to all markets, not just the USA) interrupted? The price of oil would skyrocket. Every country without it's own domestic supply would feel the pinch harshly. Industrial production, transportation and their economy would suffer. If the supply was cut off entirely, whole countries and it's citizens would come to grinding halt, overnight. Panic in the streets, chaos, anarchy.

 

So to blame Americans for starting this war, or even to keep at it, misses a real serious point. Anytime the supply of oil is threatened, we all suffer greatly. With Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE in such a turbulent state due to crazy islamic nutbars threatening global oil production, somebody had to go in there and secure it for everybody else. Can you picture Russia or China in there doing the same thing? Would that make you feel more secure? I bet not.

 

Iran threatens to cut off almost 40% of the world supply by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, building nuclear weapons, financing terrorism throughout the region, and generally being a bunch of a$$holes. Not a pretty picture. If you look at the area in a broader picture, you have American troops in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan. Iran is being squeezed from both sides. I think they (Iran) know they are cornered and so they sit down and shut up. I think things would be far worse in terms of stability in that region if Iran was left to it's own devices.

 

A nasty war in Iraq appears to have been a failure, but even that is now turning around and peace is in sight. There were some huge mistakes made for sure, but in hindsight some years from now, it will have proved to be the right thing to do.

 

Bush was not willing to have the free world held hostage by the dictators in that region. Yes war is bad. But the alternatives to war are often much worse. See how and why Hitler could have been stopped before world war erupted. Appeasement. Had he been kicked hard for breaking the peace treaty after WWI, the Nazi war machine would never have been built. Now apply that scenario to today's time. We can either stop radical islam now.. or wait for WWIII to happen, and the next WW will be fought over oil. So who would you rather have looking after it?... Russia, China or the USA?

 

Iknow this thread got hijacked, but its still, as TQN said,

 

"Nice to see some non-combative, intelligent and non-arrogant posts here"

 

Carry on boys and girls.

 

 

 

 

 

[5Lgreenback]

As many people think this is a war for oil, I'll play along and maybe give some ideas as to why an oil-war was needed.

 

Regardless of who was in there doing the war-fighting, the main point of it was not to 'steal' the oil, as America was being accused of, but rather the need to protect the source and supply.

 

Look how we all moaned about high oil and gas prices not too long ago. Imagine if any one of the middle east oil producing countries had their delivery(to all markets, not just the USA) interrupted? The price of oil would skyrocket. Every country without it's own domestic supply would feel the pinch harshly. Industrial production, transportation and their economy would suffer. If the supply was cut off entirely, whole countries and it's citizens would come to grinding halt, overnight. Panic in the streets, chaos, anarchy.

 

So to blame Americans for starting this war, or even to keep at it, misses a real serious point. Anytime the supply of oil is threatened, we all suffer greatly. With Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE in such a turbulent state due to crazy islamic nutbars threatening global oil production, somebody had to go in there and secure it for everybody else. Can you picture Russia or China in there doing the same thing? Would that make you feel more secure? I bet not.

 

Iran threatens to cut off almost 40% of the world supply by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, building nuclear weapons, financing terrorism throughout the region, and generally being a bunch of a$$holes. Not a pretty picture. If you look at the area in a broader picture, you have American troops in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan. Iran is being squeezed from both sides. I think they (Iran) know they are cornered and so they sit down and shut up. I think things would be far worse in terms of stability in that region if Iran was left to it's own devices.

 

A nasty war in Iraq appears to have been a failure, but even that is now turning around and peace is in sight. There were some huge mistakes made for sure, but in hindsight some years from now, it will have proved to be the right thing to do.

 

Bush was not willing to have the free world held hostage by the dictators in that region. Yes war is bad. But the alternatives to war are often much worse. See how and why Hitler could have been stopped before world war erupted. Appeasement. Had he been kicked hard for breaking the peace treaty after WWI, the Nazi war machine would never have been built. Now apply that scenario to today's time. We can either stop radical islam now.. or wait for WWIII to happen, and the next WW will be fought over oil. So who would you rather have looking after it?... Russia, China or the USA?

 

Iknow this thread got hijacked, but its still, as TQN said,

 

"Nice to see some non-combative, intelligent and non-arrogant posts here"

 

Carry on boys and girls.

 

Thats one point of view I have never heard before, but its based on some pretty huge assumptions. I dont think you would be seeing it that way if the situation were reveresed. Imagine Iraq was the world superpower that invaded North America, came in and bombed, killed, raped (not to mention tortured) those closest to you. Women, children, everyone. Everything you have worked for in your whole life destroyed, civil war breaks out and your forced to join some kind of rebel gang for survival. Obviously this is impossible to imagine.

 

And the reasoning for this was all for Iraqs intrests in your oil and trying to maintain power in the region. Essentially so the rich will get richer. With nothing to loose Im willing to bet you would join these so called "rebel" forces and vow to kill every Iraqi solider possible, as would I. In fact a brutal war on North American soil might finally open a few peoples eyes.

 

Oil is a finite resource, its going to run out sooner or later, imagine what the 5 trillion+ could have done for investing in new technologies rather than running up a debt destryoing a country and killing innocent people. Not only that, but the war has increased hatred for America even further, and destroyed stability in region, negating the point that a war was needed for security and preventing a larger war as in reality it has come much closer to creating a larger war.

 

Suffering over oil prices is a small price to pay even though it may slow down the economy, its just a warning sign that maybe the system is in need of an overhaul, sooner or later, and maybe doing it sooner is a better idea than fighting a war. I only moan about gas prices because the money is going to the already rich oil companies, if it were going into the pockets of the poor people in countries that we take advantage of, i would gladly pay it.

 

That Iran stuff is a straight up load of media/ government crap. Its just the same old scare tactics trying to scare americans into invading Iran. LOL, does "Weapons of Mass destruction" ring a bell? America and Iran have a history of not getting along. Iran has many reasons to not like America, but they are no threat to America. Iran is not near the evil empire that Americans would have the rest of the world believe its all media hype. In fact many neighbouring countries of Iran have even stated they have no problems with Iran having nuclear weapons.

 

Lets not forget that a large part of what we call "stability" in a region is... are these countries/ regions willing to give us what we want. "Free World" held hostage by dictators? thats a little extreme, and besides that, america has been known to APPOINT evil dictators in countries if these dictators are willing to co-operate with their demands. Its their oil and they should be able to do with it as they please. Its not their problem frankly, that our greed and turning a blind eye to the future has got us to this point.

 

However, slightly back on topic, I think Obama has already, and will in the future probably help American relations with other countries. No not because hes black. Because of his more diplomatic attitude as to how things should be done.

[arctic_front]

5Lgreenback,

 

I didn't say I agreed with everything I posted, but I do understand the realities of geo-politics. What is one country's stability is another country's instability. You are correct tho.... how I would feel if the roles were reversed. Indeed I would.

 

I also agree that the oil will run out at some point. Until there is the new technologies in place, our way of life, aka, global economy, will still require that black gold. We all have jobs in an industry of some type that requires petroleum in one form or another. It's the 'chicken or egg' argument. We can't change the way the world works just yet. Maybe one day in the future that will be different, but right now we don't have the option. 5 trillion dollars would definitely have given that R&D for alternate technologies a big boost. In the meantime, we have to go with what we have. As sad of a state the world is in, with the wars, death and destruction, it is somewhat in our nature as human beings throughout history, only now we can do it on an industrial scale. I'm not defending it, but I understand it.

 

As for your disagreement on dictators hold us hostage, do you remember the 1973 OPEC oil embargo? I sure do. The thing is, even if they don't cut us off, we are still held hostage to the fact our entire economy is held hostage to the supply. An earthquake, a hurricane or even an accident in a big enough oil terminal could cut the supply very quickly, and the resulting price increases hurt the poor and developing nations the hardest. We are all held hostage by oil. For now at least.

[carholme]

Maybe it is time to look back and see another point of view, especially when we think we have all the answers and are so quick to judge.

 

Cap and others will understand as this was written in 1973 and no matter how much things change, they often remain the same.

 

 

A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Good Neighbor

Widespread, but only partial, news coverage was given recently to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars! into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon -! not once, but several times - and safely home again. You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here. When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those." Stand proud, America!

 

 

carholme

 

[arctic_front]

Good timing, Carholm.

[cap]

L3driver--------I will reply to you sentence by sentence of your reply. At that point I will cease any further responses. I replied only because every so often I get weary of continual ignorance and poor memories. So here goes once more:

 

1) Russia was the country used as an example by me to demonstrate the depth of Canada's involvment in the international oil business and how deep that involvment runs and and has run over the decades. Other than that, I couldn't give a **** if Russia sells any of it's oil, who it sells that oil to or whether or not it makes a profit. I doubt if one drop is sold to the US, but again, I don't care about that either.

 

2) Canada went into Afghanistan because the UN Secretary-General almost pleaded with the PM to do so AND THAT I saw the Secretary-General do on national TV news before Canada went anywhere. It was also covered widely by various news organizations worldwide also. Canada eventually went there and did so under the umbrella of ISAF. After they were established there, NATO had a meeting and they decided that some of their member countries would send their militaries there also. At no time did I see/hear/hinted at that the UN and NATO were doing so under pressure from oil barons in the USA. Perhaps you have information from the 'Inner Sanctum' and it has been shared with you personally.

 

So NATO countries attended the scene. The Dutch contributed and although a small contingent, they pulled their own weight. Germany went also, but have the caveat that their troops will not engage in combat zones nor are allowed to board NATO a/c in the area. The Brits are there because Canada shamed them into being there and everyone bore witness to that. The French were dragged, kicking and screaming into the country. Canada carried the majority of the workload and finally could no longer withstand the losses in materiale or personnel. The Americans were finally asked and they are providing the assistance Canada needed. Should Canada be in Afghanistan now? NO!!! The reason being as follows. Our esteemed European NATO bretheren had no problem whataoever accepting and asking for Canada's aide in monies, lives and equipment in TWO World Wars. When Canada asked them for their help in Afghanistan, it was either refused or given conditionally. At THAT point Canada should have shipped all her military home. Americans and Canadians have the bodies of their citizens buried on land and in the seas all over the planet from helping others, but when we both need simple military help ourselves, we both get......."Yeah BUT" or a simple "No".

 

3 You mentioned only the US and her role as a 'bully' in the oil business of Africa and the Middle East. What about France, Holland, Britain also. British oil companies were into Iraq 20+ years before the Americans ever stepped into the country. The British government and military even propped-up their governments and their King Faisal.

 

I have no problem with your criticism of the US concerning anything, AS LONG AS you include all of those who were part of the deed,,,,,,be it bad or good. So when discussing the Vietnam War, for example, you will also mention Australia's Army, Navy and Air Forces's involvment; the same for the military of The Republic of South Korea......and the contributions of other SEATO countries to that conflict. You will also mention the role played by Canada's Ambassador to Vietnam, Chester A. Ronning and his Embassy Staff and the recorded role they played in spotting bombing targets for the USAF in North Vietnam because they had freedom of movement to do........because Canada was neutal. You will also mention the $5,000,000,000 USD that Canada made each year of that war by supplying the US military with everything from food to fatigue uniforms, training facilities for the USAF at Cold Lake, AB to napalm, supplied by DOW Chemical and CIL from their Montreal plants........AND continue to do so.

 

So once you have done exactly the same for their contributions (good and bad) to the oil business, that will be considered fair. Bullies? I understand that America stuck her big nose into Canadian affairs in the years before she became involved in WW2. Once again she stuck her nose and 'bullied" her way into the affairs of Great Britain in those hears and continued to do so for hears afterwards. She even forced her to accept monies and charged her enough interest that it was just 2 years ago that Britain finally got all of it paid back. She did the same for France, Holland, Luxembourg, Italy and Belguim. I understand completely what you mean. If America wouldn't have forced her help, aide and monies on all those countries, then the war would not have continued as long as it did. The monetary cost would have therefore been hugely less, millions more would not have died in many horrible ways and I'd have gotten to meet my three uncles who gave their lives fighting for people whose names they didn't even know and weren't kin to

 

Lastly, I have my own mental and physical scars from my own 26 month involment in my own war, so my opinion and feelings are a lot 'spicier' than yours buddy and I don't even like heated arguments at a pub drink table or a coffee room. You will therefore demonstrate the common sense to never ask me again if I'm "justifying" anyone dying in any war. There isn't one bit of Afghani soil that's worth the life of one Canadian.....and specially not when they go on many patrols by marching past opium poppy fields with their 'bully' friends from south of the 49th.

 

 

Apologies to all others for filling-up so much of your screen with rant.