> Yes, you would be moral if only it weren't for the US. Darn them!

> Your caricature does not accurately represent what I wrote.

> I think it does, more or less. Your implication has been that
> Canada's problems originate with the US,

> More accurate: your perception is that that's what I've been
> saying.

True, that is more accurate, though perhaps superfluous. Everything I 
understand people to say is just that -- my perception. You are my 
perception. So far as I know, the entire world and all its people don't 
even exist, except in my fevered imagination. But I think my perception 
is at least reasonably justified in this case, based on exchanges like 
the following from yesterday evening:

     > Maybe better food is why our special forces killed more
     > Taliban than your special forces did in Afghanistan over
     > the past six months even though your group is 4 times the
     > size of ours (1300 vs 300)* ;-)  

     > Yeah, its real nice to know that you Canadians are real
     > killers slaughtering people half way around the word. It
     > must make you feel great. 

     > I never know whether to feel proud or ashamed. Our problem
     > these days is we are gradually losing our sovereignty to
     > the U.S. and are becoming prisoners of your foreign policy.
     > We don't have a lot of choice -- sometimes you just have to
     > play a bad hand the best you can. That's why I was so
     > surprised when Jean Chrétien criticized Bush's readiness to
     > go to war against Iraq and advised caution. That's rather
     > un-Canadian.

Perhaps now you understand the origin of my confusion.

> I'm saying you're dealt cards and you play the hand you're dealt.

Indeed, but you seemed to be saying somewhat more than merely that.

> and that any of Canada's perhaps less-than-sterling actions are
> caused because they have little choice but to bow to the yoke
> of oppression of the southern imperialists and do their bidding.

> At times that's true.

I categorically reject the proposition that the free-will actions of an 
individual or nation can be forced by another.

> At least the Americans on this list who warn of the potential
> Chinese threat are consistent in that they abhor the US' trade
> status with the Chinese, instead of making excuses about how
> big a market China is.

> And that's a good thing...why, exactly?

Because we're not trying the justify pacifying a corrupt nation or 
government merely for financial gain, as you seem to be doing in arguing 
Canada's "forced hand" because of its trade relationship with the US.

> You wrote that the US "dismantled" your aerospace industry.

> You did.

Actually, it was you.

> But I never wrote that it was done by military force as you
> caricaturized.

Then the US did not "dismantle" it. The US merely said it would not buy 
its arms from Canada if Canada refused to do thus-and-such. Canada was 
free to ignore the threat, lose the business, and keep its honor intact. 
Not America's fault that it chose otherwise.

> But since you seem interested, I'll say that as far as I'm
> concerned, Gadianton Robbers, aka the Military-Industrial
> Complex, are still Gadianton Robbers even if they wear a maple
> leaf instead of stars 'n' bars.

Interesting, then, that we never read any posts from you proclaiming 
that fact (other than this one), or bemoaning, berating, or otherwise 
badmouthing the Canadian military industry. Your posts seem rather more 
centered on your southern neighbor.

> I'm proud that my own personal high-tech career has been
> primarily in medical software and related products, rather
> than in military-related applications.

Does that make you less morally culpable for the deaths caused by the 
military actions of Canada and the US? Do you feel that your fellow 
ward/stake/Church members who *do* work for the "military-industrial 
complex" or who voluntarily serve in the military are therefore more 
morally culpable for those deaths?

> If the Manhattan had spilled oil, whose environment would have
> been harmed, who would have had to clean it up, and who would
> have refused to foot the bill, dya think?

> Maybe you're right. Please cite a reasonably recent example
> of the US creating an environmental mess in another country,
> especially an important strategic/trade partner, and then
> refusing to do anything to help out.

> Afghanistan.

1. Demonstrate that Afghanistan is an important strategic or trade 
partner, especially given the US presence in the Gulf region.

2. Describe the environmental mess created by the US.

3. Demonstrate the US' lack of helping to clean up that mess.

4. Explain how the above reasoning can now reasonably be extrapolated to 
apply to Canada.

You might be able to make a case for #1, but I bet you can't get past 

> You keep confusing statements about economic realities with
> opinions about morality. I hope I've elucidated your fuzzification.

You've certainly told me I've misunderstood you, if that's what you 
mean. Given your confusion on whether to feel "proud or ashamed", I did 
indeed take what you wrote as a statement on morality. I don't know that 
national economic realities engender particular pride or shame in most 
of us. I certainly feel no personal pride in America's recent economic 
surge or shame in its current recession.

> Russian for "thank you." Although now that you mention it, I
> like some of your other possibilities -- they have potential.
> "Can I supersize your spasibo with that poutine, sir?"

I thought maybe it was another word for those hats with ear flaps, or a 
nickname for your prime minister. Or maybe the name of one of those 
provinces that we Americans can't ever remember.


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to