Cindy Sheehan, Leave Us Alone
The crazy Cindy Sheehan Fan Club has linked to me, and several of them have dropped by to express their "best wishes".
I find this amusing.
I also find it amsuing when any ignorant American tells us how to run our country, or when somebody attempts to set up a straw man that they can easily knock down by trying to link Afghanistan to Iraq, or Harper to George Bush, etc.
It's the modern day equivalent of Godwin's law - throwing a Hitler reference out there. Only these days, the first person to mention George Bush wins a prize.
Canadian Conservatives and American "Conservatives" are not the same.
If you're just dropping by to spread hate, read a book or two first. Then come back.
I find this amusing.
I also find it amsuing when any ignorant American tells us how to run our country, or when somebody attempts to set up a straw man that they can easily knock down by trying to link Afghanistan to Iraq, or Harper to George Bush, etc.
It's the modern day equivalent of Godwin's law - throwing a Hitler reference out there. Only these days, the first person to mention George Bush wins a prize.
Canadian Conservatives and American "Conservatives" are not the same.
If you're just dropping by to spread hate, read a book or two first. Then come back.
posted by Toronto Tory at 11:03 PM
10 Comments:
A sad woman being used by evil people who couldn't care less about her.
While as a mother, I feel sad that her son died - I wonder how she is "honoring" her son's choices in life by this path of hate she is on.
Cindy, or any of the other leftist hate mongering moonbats out there who can pass this on to her,
Your son died a hero - don't disgrace his name or yourself any more than you have done - it is embarrassing!
"Canadian Conservatives and American "Conservatives" are not the same."
You hit the nail on the head there! Same goes for Liberals, a political party here, a small-l name for a point of view here (often badly expressed by the Liberal party), but only a bad word often applied to radical leftists in the states.
When talking with those (more than a few) Americans who are ignorant, they find it surprising that we actually have political parties called "Liberal" and "Conservative", and they wonder why we would need any others? Such people are concerned that there are liberal republicans as well as conservative ones, and conservative democrats as well as liberal ones in the states. That's when I tell them about our second last election. I think I've mentioned it here before, I tell them about the very early returns in a Waterloo area riding where the communists were in first place. Shocked that we allow communists at all here, I cool them off by telling them the communists made a strong start with 200 votes in a couple of polling stations (probably near a campus), but only increased to about 250 while the two main parties got over 15000 each, so they lost their deposit to be on the ballot. Fighting communism, $500 at a time...
With regard to the "peace" movement, it is one of the times I most wish my father was still alive. I'd like to hear his view on the current wars. He was in the Navy in WWII. He was not a supporter of the Viet Nam war, but understood the reasoning about the domino theory. Once he told me about the peace movement before and during WWII. It was very small, but there were people who believed we shouldn't be interfering in European affairs, and we shouldn't be fighting against Mr. Hitler. To give those people some credit, the Holocaust was not yet a documented fact, only anecdotal evidence, though the anti-semitism going on was certainly well known.
At the time, the anti-WWII people were seen as either part of a fifth column of agitators supported by the enemy, or as very misguided people who did not understand that eventually they themselves would be targets of the worldwide reich, no matter how good people they were. The usual rhetoric that we are fighting for their right to disagree like that was lost on them. And they quietly melted back into society after the war was over.
When you read some of the later released information from WWII, our leaders faced a much more clear cut alarming situation than the populace was told about. They certainly knew the nazis were close to nuclear weapons (if indeed they worked as the theory at the time said they would) and that they were developing V2 rocket delivery vehicles, and the V3 that could hit new york was on the drawing board. They did not tell the people about supersonic rockets that would simply explode someplace, with no warning. There is a story about allowing Coventry to be bombed to protect the fact that they had broken the codes and would need them for D-Day. That story is now discredited, but the point is that the leaders faced a situation they could not tell the populace about.
In the current situation, we have George W, who greatly admires his father, a decorated WWII veteran. Is he just playing the WWII "you'd understand what we are doing if you knew what we do" for making money for his cronies? Or is there really a grave threat going on? He talks of letting history judge, as if secrets will come out later vindicating him. Are we being fooled?
I am holding my nose, but feel forced to give GW and the neo-cons the benefit of the doubt on this question at this time. Just suppose the ayatollah regime has terror sleeper agents all over the place here, perhaps with some sort of WMDs. As we found with the nazi sleeper agents, they can only be stopped by stopping the terror being used to coerce them. When the regime can no longer credibly threaten to do terrible things (such as drop their relatives into shredding machines) for refusing to comply, they will not act on pre-planned doomsday orders and will melt back into society along with the antiwar people.
Supposing for a moment that this scenario is true, then occupying Afghanistan and Iraq (each with a 600 mile border on Iran) makes a lot of sense. Recall the botched hostage rescue in 1979. There was no place from which to base the rescue attempt, without flyig over third countries or coming from water. Now with Iran practically surrounded, and accused of nuke development, they are somewhat deterred from activating any terror sleepers here. Should the regime decide it is about to lose power, and tries activating the sleepers to distract attention, they may be less able to rely on the sleepers. The sleepers would see that should they disobey orders, the regime is in its last gasp and may already be in no position to murder their relatives, while obeying orders would likely result in death for the same threatened relatives, except instead of being killed by the regime, they would die from the results of several hydrogen bombs.
I agree she should butt out of our decisions, but so should Conservative Americans as well.
That being said I do agree with her views. I am worried about Canada's shift to the right after seeing the disaster of the neo-cons in the United States.
Miles,
I don't even think George Bush qualifies as a "Neo-Con". His policies aren't Conservative, nor are they neo-Conservative. they're a mish-mash.
If he was a Conservative in the sense that most Conservatives here identify themselves, he certainly wouldn't be running the deficits that he's running.
I really don't think a parallel can be drawn between U.S. and Canadian politics, or parties for that matter. Someone who is "Right Wing" in Canada would still be to the left of many democrats.
If you look at John Kerry's actual views, he'd be called an extreme right-winger in Canada.
To be fair, there are millions of Canadians who don't think twice before telling Americans how they should run their country. And as long as they do, Americans have the right to reciprocate.
Paul, that's actually a fair point.
Although one difference is in doesn't make the news in the States when Canadians tell them what to do. :)
I think the American culture expects everyone to tell them what to do. If you are not eligible to vote there, they will listen to your views more readily, since they don't have to classify you as extreme left or right, but they don't mind you expressing your views on their internal affairs. They expect the world to care about their business. Since anyone might someday emigrate there, they assume you would want to tell them what to do, just like everyone within the states does.
Here, we're more concerned with mouse and elephant problem, so we don't like being lectured by them. We assume they don't have a clue how our system works (usually correct), while everyone knows a lot about hoe the US works, because of the vast cultural exports, movies, books etc.
I always thought neo-con was the word for people who agree with the "project for a new american century", which among other things, promotes military dominance and an active role in the world. But you're right, it doesn't have a lot to do with conservatism, as in living within our means, and as in law and order without a spy/police state.
liberal supporter said...
"I think the American culture expects everyone to tell them what to do. ...they don't mind you expressing your views on their internal affairs. They expect the world to care about their business."
You are making a lot of asumptions about Americans. We don't expect the world to care about our business but are not bothered if you do care. We are bothered, however, by Canadians trying to get involved in our politics. We would never dream of telling Canadians how to vote or calling your leaders names but you seem to have no problems with either. Please watch from the sidelines but don't get involved and don't tell us how to run our own country.
I am not sure where the reader, who has written above, gets his news from. Most US liberals LOVE it when foreigners tell Americans how their country should be run, as long as it agrees with their leftist ideology and includes a fair amount of Bush bashing.
Liberals in the US only care if a foreigner disagrees with their positions on how the great USA should be run.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home