babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Is the U.S. Debt to the U.N a fraud?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Is the U.S. Debt to the U.N a fraud?
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 13 February 2002 12:53 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
U.S. contributions to U.N. not recognized at all

So much for U.S. Debt to the U.N.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 February 2002 01:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The key here is that the USA footed the bill for its own peacekeeping operations and did not contribute the funds to the UN.

Ergo, back dues are still a legitimate debt.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 13 February 2002 01:34 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
They aren't a 'legitmate debt' at all. Not only is America the largest contributer to the UN, and always has been, America has always been footing most of the bill for UN peacekeeping missions. Furthermore, America pays for things through the UN its own citizens don't agree with, or don't receive as a benefit (ie state funded abortions)

What's interesting about the report is that America's Congress has passed into law that America will only pay 25% of the UN costs, and these America-hating socialists still insist that America pay 30%, and call it 'back dues' if America follows its own laws.

America should kick the UN into the Hudson, and tell them to screw off.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 13 February 2002 01:46 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee, if only getting rid of life's little annoyances were so easy . . . I can see the Rideau Canal from here.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 13 February 2002 02:50 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh please. That's sort of like saying you paid your cable TV bill because you went out and rented videos for the same price. DUH.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
QuikSilver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1470

posted 13 February 2002 03:16 PM      Profile for QuikSilver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh please. That's sort of like saying you paid your cable TV bill because you went out and rented videos for the same price. DUH

Actually it's like buying your own cable company, giving everyone else free t.v and still being expected to pay your own t.v bill.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: QuikSilver ]


From: Your Wildest Fantasies | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 13 February 2002 03:51 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A more accurate analogy would be claiming that
you don't have to pay the 30% income tax demanded by your government because your family held a meeting and decided that 25% was a fairer percentage. Your loud uncle kept screaming about paying the sales tax on a new car, gas, and his vacation cabin on the lake as justification. Eventually, everyone got tired of listening to him screaming and agreed.

Good thing we have all those munitions in the basement, just a'waitin' for Revenue Canada to come by looking for the owed 5%.

Sarcasmo


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 14 February 2002 11:42 AM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Ahhhh, I see, so the UN is America's 'government' and has the power to levy a "tax" on America just because it feels like it, huh?

I've got some bad news for you. America is a sovereign nation, doesn't owe any tax to anybody, and would be a lot better off punting the UN into the ocean.

Montreal isn't far, you guys pay for it.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 February 2002 12:01 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think getting the UN off of American soil is a great idea.

This time let's locate it in a progressive country that's actually committed to human rights.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 February 2002 12:02 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nope. America doesn't owe tax to anyone. Nope. Everyone else, however, owes obeisance and tribute to America. Dollaru akbar!
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 14 February 2002 12:31 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think getting the UN off of American soil is a great idea.
This time let's locate it in a progressive country that's actually committed to human rights.

I hear there's a lot of vacant office space in downtown Kabul.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 14 February 2002 01:06 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me explain briefly, Archimedes...

The US agreed to join the UN with eyes wide open knowing the funding schemes ahead of time. They should not have unilaterally decided that the funding scheme is unfair, they should have gone to the UN and proposed a change, voted on it, and accepted the result. Considering the veto power they wield and the votes they hold in proxy (i.e. puppet nations such as Canada), they probably could've got the funding formula changed, within reasonable limits. The fact is that the US acted unilaterally (what else is new?) in refusing to pay their dues.

Speaking on the UN buildings in NYC: They voted (and wanted) to have it HQ'd in NYC because of the huge international political clout having the UN HQ garnered. They didn't demurely or grudgingly accept the location; they actively lobbied for it. If the US doesn't want the UN around anymore, we're more than happy to offer prime real estate in downtown Montreal. I'm sure the diplomats would appreciate the tastier bagels, as well.

Sarcasmo


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 February 2002 01:34 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I hear there's a lot of vacant office space in downtown Kabul.

Well that would just be moving it to another non-elected oligarchy run by a former oilman, wouldn't it?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
dan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 764

posted 14 February 2002 02:03 PM      Profile for dan        Edit/Delete Post
I favour the idea of moving the UN, not so much to snub the US, but rather to the poorest regions of the world where the new hosts could benefit from the attendant infrastructure upgrades necessary to service the UN body. And as the region shows signs of social, political and economic stability, pick another flagging nation and move again. And again and again and again until the UN sits at the Antarctic and penguins are gnawing on herring in cedar-lined saunas.
From: outside the loop | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 February 2002 02:06 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The key here is that the USA footed the bill for its own peacekeeping operations and did not contribute the funds to the UN.
Ergo, back dues are still a legitimate debt.

What are you saying DrC??? Are you acknowledging that the U.S., the Great Satan, The Evil Empire actually unilaterally funds peacekeeping operations??? How can it be that you are saying these good things about America???
(Please note Sarcasm)

quote:

This time let's locate it in a progressive country that's actually committed to human rights.[/QUOTE}

Yeah, right, you can locate it in one of the progressive countries that made the U.N. Human rights commission in place of the U.S. Say like Sudan, Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. They're so much more committed to human rights.
(note: Sarcasm) What country allows its citizens more human rights than the U.S.

[QUOTE]
Let me explain briefly, Archimedes...
The US agreed to join the UN with eyes wide open knowing the funding schemes ahead of time.


And those funding schemes were not carved in stone for all eternity.

quote:

They should not have unilaterally decided that the funding scheme is unfair, they should have gone to the UN and proposed a change, voted on it, and accepted the result.

Considering the veto power they wield and the votes they hold in proxy (i.e. puppet nations such as Canada), they probably could've got the funding formula changed, within reasonable limits. The fact is that the US acted unilaterally (what else is new?) in refusing to pay their dues


Its absurd to think that the rest of the countries in the U.N. would vote to have one country pay less. The U.S. veto power would not get them any lower dues. I think your being a bit naive here if you think that everybody would simply be so reasonable.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 14 February 2002 02:25 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not being naive; I'm considering that the US controls most of the voting power in the UN, through what amounts to essentially client states (or what some would call bullying). The could change the funding scheme through the UN, rather than to spite the UN. Less political points at home using the latter technique, however.

Sarcasmo


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 February 2002 03:04 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What country allows its citizens more human rights than the U.S.?

It's not up to nations to "allow" citizen's their human rights. They are inalienable. States can suppress their citizens' human rights if they choose, but the state cannot grant that which the people already possess. I think the word you are groping for there is "safeguard" or "protect", something that empires show little enthusiasm for.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 14 February 2002 03:39 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
No, let me explain, Sarasmobri.

America is a sovereign nation. The UN will get what America decides to contribute and like it. America is sick to death of funding the rest of the world's pathetic efforts to ensure peace and stability in the world, only to have America-hating screamers rail at America at every opportunity, and yet hide behind her skirts when threatened.

Pat Buchanan is right. America should bring her troops home and put them on the Mexican and Canadian border.


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 14 February 2002 03:57 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kind of interesting how attitudes have changed since the 1940s.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 14 February 2002 04:59 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see you've answered all of my points about the US going in eyes open, knowing the due structure, the UN being a world body that the US is a (sometimes) eager member of, etc. etc. most eloquantly and clearly, Archimedes. I concede victory to your superior debating style.

Oh wait, no you haven't. You've just repeated the same tired line about US sovereignty again and again. My mistake. I'll continue argueing with you, but I refuse to re-answer points I've already addressed. Sorry.

We need on online poll! Who thinks Archimedes is a cleverly programmed bot and who thinks he's a live human troll? Anyone? I vote for bot.

Sarcasmo


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 14 February 2002 07:41 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm not being naive; I'm considering that the US controls most of the voting power in the UN, through what amounts to essentially client states (or what some would call bullying). The could change the funding scheme through the UN, rather than to spite the UN. Less political points at home using the latter technique, however.
Sarcasmo

The US withholding dues was not solely about the funding scheme. It was also about forcing the UN to reform which it would not until recently. In 2000 UN staff were convicted of stealing UN funds for the first time in history. Never was a UN staff member ever held accountable for any misdeeds. Many other reforms occured especially in the area of peacekeeping. Those reforms happened only after the U.S. withheld dues. coincidence, I think not.


quote:

What country allows its citizens more human rights than the U.S.?
It's not up to nations to "allow" citizen's their human rights. They are inalienable. States can suppress their citizens' human rights if they choose, but the state cannot grant that which the people already possess. I think the word you are groping for there is "safeguard" or "protect", something that empires show little enthusiasm for.

Your right and I'll rephrase. There are few countries in the world that safeguard and protect let alone recognize their citizen's inalienable human rights. Many of the worlds worst human rights offenders are included in the UN commission on human rights including Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and especially Sudan which currently allows slavery. This shows the hypocracy of anyone critisizing U.S. human rights record especially by means of the UN which should be ashamed.

quote:

No, let me explain, Sarasmobri.
America is a sovereign nation. The UN will get what America decides to contribute and like it. America is sick to death of funding the rest of the world's pathetic efforts to ensure peace and stability in the world, only to have America-hating screamers rail at America at every opportunity, and yet hide behind her skirts when threatened.

Archimedes I have to disagree. Although the America hating screamers have a loud voice they are among a slim minority. The support the rest of the world has shown in the wake of WTC attacks shows that the majority of the world appreciates the U.S. THe rallies held in Canada, England and Japan show the pro U.S. sentiment that exists. One simply has to look at the human rights records of countries who are America's biggest critics to recognize they have no legs to stand on.

quote:

Pat Buchanan is right. America should bring her troops home and put them on the Mexican and Canadian border.

Pat Buchanan doesn't see the big picture, America should not put troops on borders with Mexico. America's strength and best defense comes from its cultural diversity. Nietchze was misunderstood by the Nazi's who felt they were his overman due to their racial purity. Nietchze's overman was a thoroughly racially mixed human who had the best of every culture.

In Buchanan's book how the west was lost he warns of America's ethnic background going from a european majority to a minority. He's right and it shouldn't be a warning but a celebration.

Its not like those European values will be lost, they will simply be mixed in with other cultures. This is one of the reasons that shows the hypocracy of people like Bin Laden and America haters. They maintain that America oppresses other cultures while those cultures thrive and prosper within America. The more successful muslims that prosper in America the less muslims can claim they are singled out for oppression by America.

Buchanan can take his racially pure, european propaganda and shove it.

P.S. Is it just me or does anybody else notice how people that are racially mixed seem more attractive? I think the hottest girls are ones who are racially mixed. Sounds silly but I'm serious.

quote:

I see you've answered all of my points about the US going in eyes open, knowing the due structure, the UN being a world body that the US is a (sometimes) eager member of, etc. etc.

I addressed it, the due structure was not carved in stone by someone who brought it up a mountain.
There was no way to change it except by reminding the rest of the UN how important the US contribution was toward its survival.

The point of this thread was that the U.S. continued to give such an huge contribution towards Peacekeeping Missions that claiming it is a deadbeat for withholding dues is misleading.

No one has refuted the huge amounts of money that was contributed by the U.S. under Clinton. All we heard was people complain about the dues. Now they'll probably pay their dues and lower the peacekeeping contributions. In the end it seems as though the same amount of money will end up being contributed to the UN.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 14 February 2002 10:50 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bravo Markbo...you are right on the money.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 14 February 2002 11:50 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I once heard this joke a few years back: that Pat Buchanan "want to build another Great Wall between the US and Canada. But the original Great Wall was built to keep the barbarians out! He'd be doing us a favour!" I still find it humourous and relevant.
From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Captaffy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1436

posted 15 February 2002 12:00 AM      Profile for Captaffy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
P.S. Is it just me or does anybody else notice how people that are racially mixed seem more attractive? I think the hottest girls are ones who are racially mixed. Sounds silly but I'm serious.

Yes! Now if only I could get them to talk to me.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 February 2002 08:34 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See, even crazy lefties like me can change our minds when presented with the facts. I didn't realize that the US withholding dues was because of corruption within the UN (and lack of action against that corruption). Obviously, I'm not getting all the facts (personally, I blame our knee-jerk media...never blame yourself, I say).

I wasn't talking about you, Markbo, with my comment on not answering my points. That was solely directly at the empty-barrel bot himself (Archimedes). Despite what others here might think, I've seen you change your opinions, your arguments, and more importantly our opinions in some threads as they've progressed. That's what discussion is all about. Sorry if I was inadvertantly painting you with the same brush.

Sarcasmo


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 February 2002 08:56 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
P.S. Is it just me or does anybody else notice how people that are racially mixed seem more attractive? I think the hottest girls are ones who are racially mixed. Sounds silly but I'm serious.

Markbo, I'm sure you meant well by this comment, but it is in fact a cliche of the imperial male, sexist and racist at the same time.

You say that you have appreciated the opportunity that the cut and thrust of babble has given you to sit back and rethink some of your opinions. Great. I hope you will consider this reaction to those lines above to be such an opportunity.

Otherwise, you get a lecture on child prostitution and Amero-Euro-tourism in South-East Asia.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 February 2002 11:57 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are few countries in the world that safeguard and protect let alone recognize their citizen's inalienable human rights.

Right you are, and the US is arguably on that small list, although retreating "Patriot" bill by bill. What the US is demonstrably guilty of is actively suppressing the human rights of citizens of other countries. They're doing it right now, within their own borders, holding foreign nationals without charges for a famous instance. Your argument reminds me of the fella who praises the pure democratic ideal of ancient Athens, brushing aside the inconvenient fact that Athenians owned slaves by arguing that slaves weren't Athenians. A fine distinction, but it doesn't help to decrease human suffering one iota.

While your point about the make-up of the UN Human Rights Commission is well taken, since the US is clearly complicit in the horrific human rights record of most of the commission menbers you object to, replacing for instance Nigeria with the US doesn't really address much of anything.

That said, the notion of a nomadic UN sounds pretty good to me. How much more responsive to third world crises would the UN be if its delegates had to live there once in a while?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 15 February 2002 08:19 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Sorry it took so long to reply, Markbo.

I appreciate what your saying, and I'm sure every American was grateful for the support Canada demonstrated on September 11, and after, opening up her skies and her homes to total strangers. Canada has a lot to be proud of with such actions.

Having said that, and acknowledging your inclusion of Japan and England, I still feel the same way. The UN is a joke, voting America off the Human Rights commission, replacing America with (was it Sudan?) just as a way of poking a finger in the eye of Uncle Sam. Typically representative of the anti-American sentiment that's always existed in the UN.

Maybe I'm just particularly onery after reading Helen Cauldicaut's screeching, but it sure brought back bad memories of the bad old days when Ronald Reagan was winning the Cold War, while that stupid pinko Trudeau was providing Canada's air fields to Castro for him to send his troops to go murder people.

I've got more to reply to you, but I'm pressed for time. I'll get back to you.


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 15 February 2002 08:23 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
But one quick thing I will post, to Sarcasmobri. Why would you expect a response, when
a) you don't get it, (how a sovereign nation works) and

b) you make up total nonsense about how the US signed onto the UN agreeing to pay the majority of its dues, without respect to its own laws.

What's the point of attempting to reply?


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 15 February 2002 08:25 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
that stupid pinko Trudeau was providing Canada's air fields to Castro for him to send his troops to go murder people.

I'll probably regret asking, but... could you please elaborate a little on this?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 16 February 2002 10:40 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Markbo, I'm sure you meant well by this comment, but it is in fact a cliche of the imperial male, sexist and racist at the same time.

My comment wasn't sexist as I said "P.S. Is it just me or does anybody else notice how people that are racially mixed seem more attractive"
I specified girls only in that they were my preference.

I don't think my comment qualifies as racist as I was only saying how mixed races were attractive. I also don't think its racist if its true. But alas, I took a chance to see the reaction to this comment and would withdraw it if it offends anybody.

I don't think my comment was imperialistic because
my whole focus was how other races and cultures should be allowed, in fact celebrated in take over the ethnic mix of the U.S.

quote:
Otherwise, you get a lecture on child prostitution and Amero-Euro-tourism in South-East Asia.

child prostitution is a crime committed by things that I would not even include in the human race.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 February 2002 11:21 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, I'll admit that my reaction was a little vinegary, and I'll even confess that I know what you mean -- sort of. I think I was wrong to call your PS sexist and racist, although I still think it's very close to the old imperial cliche.
Maybe we watched too many 1950s movies, but many women of my vintage became hypersensitive to the way Polynesian and South-East Asian women were romanticized by the popular-culture machine. Nothing against the women, but they were being stereotyped and romanticized in ways oppressive to them and all other women both -- as small, gentle, passive, childlike, etc.

Still -- there's no disputing tastes, especially romantic ones. Sorry for sounding so snappish.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 16 February 2002 07:09 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Further to Markbo:

Buchanan's book is entitled, "The Death of the West", and while I haven't read it, I intend to, and I have heard Buchanan discuss the book in intereviews. I'm not certain where your information came to you, but his position is not about "racial purity', but rather European and American heritage.

You made a good point about America's strength in being a melting pot. This is also in agreement with Buchanan's position, which is that America, which used to be a melting pot where everyone adapted to the cultural heritage, language, and customs of America, is instead becoming a slave to "multiculturalism". He makes several more equally valid and factual points, but it's probably not the right place to debate them here.

And while I understand your position on women of mixed ancestry, I personally find people who have maintained ancestry along racially similar lines, no matter what race, to have excellent features. East Indian women I personally find beautiful. Same with many native women I've seen. Great skin, great cheeckbones.

But I digress. I'll get back to you on the UN.


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 February 2002 08:08 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm not certain where your information came to you, but his position is not about "racial purity', but rather European and American heritage.

Really? I think that's a distinction without a difference. Here are some excerpts from a laudatory on-line review, which you can read here:

quote:
The West is dying. Collapsing birth rates in Europe and the U. S., coupled with population explosions in Africa, Asia and Latin America are set to cause cataclysmic shifts in world power, as unchecked immigration swamps and polarizes every Western society and nation....

In The Death of the West, Buchanan contends that the U. S. now harbors a "nation within a nation", that Europe will be inundated by an Islamic-Arab-African invasion, and that most First World nations, including Japan, have begun slowly to vanish from the earth.


quote:
• By 2050, only 10% of the world’s people will be of European descent. One third of Europe’s people will be over 60, and one-in-ten over 80. Involuntary euthanasia has already come to Europe.

• Between now and 2050, Asia, Africa, and Latin America will grow by three to four billion people -- 30 to 40 new Mexicos! -- as Europe will lose the equivalent of the entire population of Germany, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

• By 2050, 23 million Germans will have disappeared along with 16 million Italians and 30 million Russians.

• Russia will lose Siberia and the far east to China and be pushed out of the Caucuses and Central Asia, where Islamic populations are exploding while Russia’s is dying.

• Either Europe must effect a radical cutback in pensions and health care for seniors, or Europe must import scores of millions of Arabs and Africans to care for the elderly and pay the taxes to sustain their welfare states.

...

• European-Americans are a minority in America’s most populous state, California, and by 2004, will be a minority in Texas.

• The political agenda of California Hispanics includes race welfare for illegal aliens, racial preferences, bilingual education, open borders, dual citizenship, Cinqo de Mayo as a California holiday, and, in one case, replacing a statue of an American hero of the Mexican War with the Aztec god Quetzacoatl.

• White Americans are fleeing California at the rate of 100,000 a year.


There's very much more, but I think these review excerpts -- again, from a very positive review -- make Buchanan's agenda abundantly clear.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 16 February 2002 08:45 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see what is wrong with the rearrangement of numbers of people on the Earth. It is also important to note that in countries with high standards of living, a greater percentage of the population is over the age of 50, whereas in ELDC's, the percentage of children in the population is much higher. In North America, infant mortality is low, and raising children (in a manner that won't get CAS on your back) is expensive. Healthcare is relatively more abundant, and a lot of money is spent on "assisted living" and caring for the welfare of senior citizens. In ELDC's (I will use statistics garnered about sub-Saharan Africa), infant mortality is high. Realatively fewer people live to old age. There are no laws on how to raise children, so having many children can be a desirable option, to ensure that you have at least a few children. Thus, the population growth. It will of course be checked by factor such as AIDS, and general unfit living conditions, but that is what happens when you have such a dramatic split of the world's wealth.
From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 16 February 2002 08:47 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And because we all know that Canada won't build a "Great Wall" to keep the "barbarians" out, I say we should put at least Buchanan on an immigration "detain-and-deport" list.
From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 16 February 2002 08:55 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Ain't it interesting, 'lance, that Buchana simply repeating the facts has you all upset about his supposed "racism"? Is it racist to talk about facts these days?

And ain't it also interesting that the completely racist agenda of the Mexican group referred to escapes your notice, but if someone mentions this agenda may not be a good thing, all of a sudden it's "racism"?

Could it be you're far more of a racist than Buchanan?


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 16 February 2002 09:23 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ain't it interesting, 'lance, that Buchana simply repeating the facts has you all upset
about his supposed "racism"? Is it racist to talk about facts these days?

Because, first of all, I doubt those are actually facts, second, he presents them in a negative manner (yes, he does- we're not idiots, we can tell), as though multiculturalism and diversity were "bad" things, and that forcing Russian cultures onto the aboriginal peoples of Siberia, and the inhabitants of the caucasus was somehow "good".

quote:
Could it be you're far more of a racist than Buchanan?

I think this warrants an apology.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 16 February 2002 10:28 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
I was in a bookstore the other day and looked at the liner notes of what I assume is Buchanon's latest book. It talked about the "muslim invasion" of Europe and North America. Referring to immigration as an "invasion" sounds pretty racist to me. Not to mention his old quotes in which he praised Hitler.
From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 16 February 2002 11:35 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's no doubt that Buchanan's a racist -- and, as you'd expect from a former speechwriter for Nixon, a past master at coded language. "New York bankers," for example, means "Jews." But he slips up once in a while.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 16 February 2002 11:46 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well you convinced me A2000; as a white guy, I didn’t realize how threatened my life had become. I hereby promise to give up such foreign filth as:

this red wine from Chile, salsa with my breakfast, these Camel Lights with their evil "Turkish & Domestic Blend", this Sony computer from Japan, that useless Asian math with those inane Arab symbols (who needs algebra anyway) and all that dirty Jew stuff (New York Times, Bob Dylan, bagels, etc.). I’ll also forego henceforth my favorite Pakistani tea, those superb Argentinean Steaks, the killer Enchiladas de Mole from La Fiesta and that nasty Joo Jee Kabob with Humus from Chelokababi. I’ll miss my Dinesh D'Sousa books and always fear that Tange Kenzo designed the building I’m about to enter.

Other cultural muck that shall be exorcised: those offensive Mariachi Bands in the local park, my Guatemalan dry cleaner, that Indian Freeware I just downloaded, and my favorite Kung Pao Chicken from Flo’s. And of course, coffee and chocolate and my Siamese cat.

To complete the job, all my Mexican, Vietnamese, Indian, Persian, Jewish, Armenian, and Chinese friends must go, as well as my dear friend of 30 years, with his (gasp!) black wife and three beautiful mulatto kids. I’m sure they’ll understand.

And I’ll get rid of my wife too, wait a minute…she’s Dutch. I think Pat would approve. Whew! That was going to be rather costly. (Is my Russian neighbor okay I wonder? He has blue eyes.)

Instead I’ll stick to the tried-and-true European rituals of Easter eggs and fertility bunnies, Christmas trees, Norwegian Herring, English Shepard’s Pies, Irish porn (is there any?), that pre-Nazi music by Wagner and Mahler and, of course, Jesus!

Yep, I feel better already. And if anybody objects, they should know, I have an AK-47 (made in China of course).


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 17 February 2002 05:29 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buchanan is quite right, of course. If I was a raving xenophobe desperate to maintain a balance of power, I would be frightened too.

The dark-skinned peoples of the world outnumber the light-skinned by a significant margin and given the rate at which globalisation is happening, I doubt there will be a pale face left on the globe in 200 years. This impending juggernaut of ethnic interbreeding probably keeps him awake at night.

But really this shouldn't bother anyone. The bogus distinction of "race"`is nothing more than different sets of inherited features. The sooner it's done away with, the better, because finally people can stop imagining that they have more in common with people that look similar to them than those that don't.

My daughter doesn't have my eyes but I think I'll keep her anyways.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 February 2002 08:04 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wot JTT said.

SHH (checked the spelling this time ), I have only one small bone to pick with your super satire, but I need to come at it from a different direction.

What amuses me most about the people now rabitting on about saving "the West" or "European civilization" is that they tend to be the people who not only know next to nothing about the traditions they're claiming to defend but are often actively hostile to them. I mean, do we really think guys like Buchanan are out there encouraging young Americans to absorb and pass on the glories of Russian or French or Italian -- or even their own -- literature, English or French historiography, anyone's philosophy or music or even theoretical math or physics?

To me, European civilization really has been capable of great glories, and I would be sorry to think that young North Americans, in reaction against the obvious crudities of neo-con cheerleading, turned away from the creative potential that still lives in their own culture -- especially the creative potential to meet and greet and learn from the other great cultures of this planet.

As for these imbecilities:

quote:

• By 2050, 23 million Germans will have disappeared along with 16 million Italians and 30 million Russians.

• Russia will lose Siberia and the far east to China and be pushed out of the Caucuses and Central Asia, where Islamic populations are exploding while Russia’s is dying.


I honestly don't know what point 1 means. People die? Anyone?

And point 2: So Siberians and the peoples of the Caucusus and Central Asia, after two exceptionally nasty centuries for them, may cease to be the playthings of the Russian, British, and latterly the American empires. I wish I could believe this. All committed democrats must work to make this so.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 17 February 2002 10:28 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only point that I figure worth discussing about Buchanan is his attitude towards language.

Maybe he has a point on this one and only issue. Shouldn't English be a requirement of all citizens. My whole point is that the U.S. and Canada become stronger when adding more cultures to it, not when those cultures replace it. I think thats Buchanan's fear is that somehow European culture will be replaced.

Now his concerns are silly, its tantamount to saying that if we let in millions of Sudanese people knowing that Sudan allows Slavery that it would be somehow then be accepted in Canada or the U.S. THat ain't gonna happen.

One simple way for us to avoid that is to make English a requirement for all citizens. Possibly making Spanish promoted as a second language and French as a third.(a bit of trolling here)

Does anybody think that making English a requirement for those seeking citizenship, refugee status etc... is wrong???

P.S. skdadle, no offence taken earlier, I think it is clear now where I stand on racism and sexism and my point did require that clarification.

Another issue that needs to be discussed openly without fear of being labeled is the problems with the islamic religion.

It boils down to this for me. The Bible is human words inspired by God. Room for error and correction etc... Its fallible. The Qu'ran is directly the word of God and many Muslims will not accept change to some of its more controversial verses. Passages that have to do with killing, enslaving infidels and such. Islam needs some reformation. Or a split between those who still believe in barbarism and those who don't. To make apostacy the worst sin is not going to help all religions live in harmony.

The sharia prescribes a completely barbaric set of punishments for crimes.

If Islam is becoming more and more popular than these issues should be addressed.

Islam is sweeping through Africa, the Carribean and South Central Asia. Which brand of islam is it however. One which defines jihad as a holy war against infidels or as a personal struggle to achieve perfection. One that punishes apostacy with death and life imprisonment, or one that instructs us to live in peace with all other religions.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 February 2002 01:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It boils down to this for me. The Bible is human words inspired by God. Room for error and correction etc... Its fallible.

A good chunk of the US and Canadian populations would disagree with you.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 02:42 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A good chunk of the US and Canadian populations would disagree with you.

You'll have to define "a good chunk." I doubt that any more than a small chunk of the Canadian population, at least, takes the Bible literally, or believes it to be infallible. The proportion in the US may be a touch higher.

That, of course, leaves me with the problem of defining "a small chunk." But I asked you first!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 17 February 2002 02:43 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
.
quote:
It boils down to this for me. The Bible is human words inspired by God. Room for error and correction etc... Its fallible.
-------------------------------------------------

A good chunk of the US and Canadian populations would disagree with you.


Yeah but then we have the separation of church and state to deal with them. I would have no problem with mainly islamic countries who also separate church and state and adopt a charter of rights.

But we don't have that in many islamic countries. We have no separation of church and state and a state governed by the Qu'ran or Sharia law definitely merits discussion.

Of course Canada and the U.S. have their fair share of nuts. Probably the same proportion as most islamic countries. We just don't let the nuts run our asylum. We have to ensure they also don't.

I think we agree that this is what happened when the Taleban took control of Afghanistan. I think it also threatens countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran etc...


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 17 February 2002 06:45 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Meades:

quote:
Because, first of all, I doubt those are actually facts,

They are facts. They are statistical measurements from both domestic and internationals sources. If "we aren't idiots", than maybe you could trouble yourself to look up birth rates of these nations Buchanan referred to, and see for yourself that they have declining birth rates.

And if 'multiculturalism' is such a good thing, why are you complaining about the native populations? How much good did "multiculturalism" do for them when Europeans immigrated to North America and kept their culture?

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 06:48 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please to get the attributions right, A2K. It was meades who said that, not I.

Having said that, I agree with every word he said.

Edited to add:

quote:
And if 'multiculturalism' is such a good thing, why are you complaining about the native populations? How much good did "multiculturalism" do for them when Europeans immigrated to North America and kept their culture?

I've never "complained about the native populations." I have been known to complain about their treatment by European-Canadian societies.

The idea of "multiculturalism," whatever exactly it means, didn't exist when Europeans settled North America. Certainly a respect for differences, a willingness to treat with aboriginal socities on an equal footing, and the political will to honour such agreements as were actually made didn't exist. The results we know.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 17 February 2002 06:50 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well you convinced me A2000; as a white guy, I didn’t realize how threatened my life had become

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, least of all actually understanding a position. Your rant might make for an opportunity to see your name in print, but it has nothing to do with what's been stated.

What Buchanan's book has stated, and it's a fact, is that birth rates are declining in western countries. And the people who are immigrating to these countries might be good people, but they don't necessarily owe their allegiance to western traditions and heritage, but to something else altogether. Moreover, they are being encouraged in this by a policy of "multiculturalism".

Now, that hardly has anything to do with what you droned on about, does it? More to the point, those are matters of fact, not conjecture. You decide how you want to react to them, but simply howling "racism", while typical, is hardly an argument.


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 17 February 2002 07:00 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
My apologies, lance. I’ve edited the post.

Andy Social wrote

Not to mention his old quotes in which he praised Hitler.

Buchanan no more praised Hitler than did William Shirer, who stated correctly in his book the Rise and fall of the Third Reich that Hitler was courageous in battle, which he was. I guess it's terrible to talk about matters of fact, isn't it?


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 07:02 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
More to the point, those are matters of fact, not conjecture.

Not good enough, Archimedes2000. Facts mean something only in the context of a case, or an argument. Buchanan's argument, that Western societies are doomed because of low birth rates, an influx of foreigners who don't "share our values," etc., is racist to the core.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 17 February 2002 07:09 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
That's right, it's Buchanan's argument, based on factual data. You might not believe that his argument spells a declining trend in Western infuence in Western countries. You might believe an influx of Islamic fundamentalists into western countries won't have any effect on these countries. You might believe that Islam, an "Eastern" religion, if you will, replacing Christianity, a traditionally Western religion, as the dominant influence in nations that have come from western heritage is a good thing. If so, you might support your argument by pointing to all those Muslim nations that have a long history of democracy, freedom of speech, association, and religion.

That would be an argument. Screaming about "racism" is not an argument.


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 07:17 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who's screaming? I simply don't have time to waste attempting to refute racism -- or, to be more charitable about it, nativism and isolationism.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 17 February 2002 07:21 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
As I said, screaming about 'racism' is not an argument.

What is it with you folks that you react so emotionally to an argument based simply on the facts?

But since you’re in such a charitable mood, let’s try this one step at a time;

1) when European immigration overwhelmed the population of Native Americans and Mexicans in the country that is now called America, did that mean any change in influence and heritage for the people who had lived there before?

2) If so, what would possibly make you think that when the Chinese population outnumbers the Russian population in Siberia that no changes would occur?

3) If so, what would possibly make you believe that when Muslims overwhelmingly populate countries like Germany, no changes would occur?

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 07:26 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buchanan doesn't produce arguments. He produces ill-informed and hateful jeremiads, which we're under no obligation to respond to. I'd prefer to ignore them. But sometimes I feel obligated to point out that such would-be emperors have no clothes.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 17 February 2002 07:29 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post

From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 17 February 2002 07:34 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Archimedes, I disagree with Buchanan's implication. I think he takes a statitistics and makes an invalid premise and draws a conclusion that is completely unsupported.

quote:
And the people who are immigrating to these countries might be good people, but they don't necessarily owe their allegiance to western traditions and heritage, but to something else altogether. Moreover, they are being encouraged in this by a policy of "multiculturalism".

When other cultures come to the U.S. and Canada they end up loving our system. In fact my biggest criticism is some try to manipulate it to their advantage. I've never seen them try to change it.

I have never seen any other culture even propose
that we should change the Bill of Rights or the Charter of rights and freedoms.

The conclusion that other cultures would try to change our traditions is based on a premise that our traditions are weaker. I think this is what Buchanan must fear.

When other cultures come here, in general, they do better here than they do in their home countries.

I recently visited Chicago and stopped in bar that had mainly mideastern people in it. (Passed by and it looked cool) Every car outside was a BMW, Porche, Mercedes etc.. I'm supposed to worry that these guys are going to try to change our system. Hell I think they'll be its biggest defenders.

No, archimedes, its not a zero sum gain, adding other cultures to ours does not take away ours. It The pie does not get divided differently, it just gets bigger, and better tasting.

(Hey does the above qualify me for the good quotes section)

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 17 February 2002 07:41 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The conclusion that other cultures would try to change our traditions is based on a premise that our traditions are weaker

That's a valid point. You would hope that the Bill of Rights is strong enough to survive such growth. So, too, is your point that immigrants often become the greatest defenders of the freedoms they experience. But that's not what the book is concerned with, it's with the idea that the Bill of Rights can survive people who don't feel obligated to adopt such heritage.

As I said, I haven't read the book, so I'm not going to defend everything that's in it. I will say that it's an interesting argument, one that should be able to be discussed without such hysterical reactions as 'racism'.


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 17 February 2002 07:46 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
it's with the idea that the Bill of Rights can survive people who don't feel obligated to adopt such heritage.

It doesn't give evidence however that these people actually exist. Once there here I'm confident they'll buy into it. They'll always be exceptions just as there are white males who don't buy into our system. They will remain among a small minority.

Your right however that people should not get so crazy about discussing these points.

I think I have shown that they can be discussed in a rational manner.

It also has been fun to be on the side of most rabblers. Makes me feel like I'm not an outsider for a bit.

Wait, I think I may have just lost my stereotype, dammit, where'd it go? Don't worry I'm sure it awaits on another thread.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 February 2002 07:46 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You'll have to define "a good chunk." I doubt that any more than a small chunk of the Canadian population, at least, takes the Bible literally, or believes it to be infallible. The proportion in the US may be a touch higher.

The Christian Coalition (or its successors) claim about 20 million members, and the viewership of 700 Club (Pat Robertson's show) is about the same.

Add in the other fundamentalists who hog the religion channels (like Vision TV and so on) and there's probably a good one-third of the US and Canadian population that believes the inerrancy-of-the-Bible dogma.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 07:48 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On this, we can agree, Markbo.

Archimedes2000, if you need some support for my contentions about Buchanan, consider thisarticle by Chip Berlet, described as a senior analyst at Political Research Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was also reproduced in full on the website of the well-respected Nizkor Project.

A selected quotation:

quote:
Patrick Buchanan bases his opposition to multiculturalism on White racial nationalism. In one article, "Immigration Reform or Racial Purity?," Buchanan himself was quite clear:

"The burning issue here has almost nothing to do with economics, almost everything to do with race and ethnicity. If British subjects, fleeing a depression, were pouring into this country through Canada, there would be few alarms."
"The central objection to the present flood of illegals is they are not English-speaking white people from Western Europe ; they are Spanish-speaking brown and black people from Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean."

Buchanan explicitly links the issue of non-White immigration with multiculturalism, quoting with approval the xenophobic and racist American Immigration Control Foundation, which said, "The combined forces of open immigration and multi-culturalism constitute a mortal threat to American civilization. The US is receiving a never-ending mass immigration of non-Western peoples, leading inexorably to white-minority status in the coming decades [while] a race-based cultural-diversity is attacking, with almost effortless success, the legitimacy of our Western culture." The Free Congress Foundation's Center for Cultural Conservatism disavows any racial nationalist intent while bluntly arguing that all non-White cultures are inferior to traditional Western cultures.


quote:
In his distaste for democracy, Buchanan has explicitly embraced racial nationalism. In one column, titled "Worship Democracy? A Dissent," Buchanan argued, "The world hails democracy in principle; in practice, most men believe there are things higher in the order of value--among them, tribe and nation, family and faith." In April 1990, he made a similar statement: "It is not economics that sends men to the barricades; tribe and race, language and faith, history and culture, are more important than a nation's GNP."

Buchanan has also stated:

"The question we Americans need to address, before it is answered for us, is: Does this First World nation wish to become a Third World country? Because that is our destiny if we do not build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our shores....Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the USA?...Is it not time to take America back?"


He's said very much more besides, which you can read by entering "Buchanan" into Nizkor's search engine.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 17 February 2002 07:49 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Christian Coalition (or its successors) claim about 20 million members, and the viewership of 700 Club (Pat Robertson's show) is about the same.

They're probably the same yo-yo's and are out of 320 million people.

quote:

Add in the other fundamentalists who hog the religion channels (like Vision TV and so on) and there's probably a good one-third of the US and Canadian population that believes the inerrancy-of-the-Bible dogma.

Can't go along with you on this one, however it does make you appreciate that separation of church and state just that much more.

Again something that many islamic countries don't have. Somethng that should be discussed.

[/QUOTE]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 07:54 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Add in the other fundamentalists who hog the religion channels (like Vision TV and so on) and there's probably a good one-third of the US and Canadian population that believes the inerrancy-of-the-Bible dogma.

This, I simply do not believe, and shan't believe absent some pretty convincing survey results.

And, while I've only occasionally watched Vision TV, I've seen vanishingly little fundamentalism there. Their focus seems quite ecumenical to me.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 February 2002 08:00 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I had Vision TV on once just for the fun of it and there was this guy who, swear to god, was the Canadian version of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Not nearly as rabid, though...

So... The Christian Broadcasting Network

quote:
By 1981, CBN Cable reached nearly 10 million homes

Bio on Pat Robertson

The Mormon church alone has 8 million members.
The Christian Coalition claims approximately 2 million members; therefore my estimate was wrong as to CC membership, but the CBN therefore has claimed 20 million viewers at a time.

More info as I gather it.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 17 February 2002 08:07 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, he wouldn't be, would he.

I don't doubt this stuff is on the channel. It can hardly be described as basically a fundamentalist channel, though. If 'twere, there'd be no Catholics, Muslims, Anglicans, and so on.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 17 February 2002 09:22 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I recently visited Chicago and stopped in bar that had mainly mideastern people in it. (Passed by and it looked cool) Every car outside was a BMW, Porche, Mercedes etc.. I'm supposed to worry that these guys are going to try to change our system. Hell I think they'll be its biggest defenders.

No, archimedes, its not a zero sum gain, adding other cultures to ours does not take away ours. It The pie does not get divided differently, it just gets bigger, and better tasting.

Damn right Markbo. As someone who’s lived in more states than most people can name from memory and with a long association with the Bay Area in CA (arguably second only to NYC in diversity) there is little doubt about this in my mind.

I’ll take skdadl’s earlier dead-on comments a step further and suggest that the new immigrant classes Pat worries about are even more “western” (if you define “western” as the loving of freedom, opportunity, and appreciation of civil society) than many of those so concerned about the loss of such. I’ve seen, heard, and felt the passion. It's real and we are all the better for it.

Buchanan himself may not personally be a racist per se, and his facts may be accurate, but the notions he proposes, and the way he expresses them, certainly seem racist to me.

And as someone who came about three weeks from being sent to Vietnam in ’72, I’m much happier to celebrate Tet in the office with my Vietnamese co-worker (Banh Chung cakes beat bullets any day).

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: SHH ]


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 17 February 2002 09:26 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
but the CBN therefore has claimed 20 million viewers at a time.

I'm sure they do, helps them advertise to attract sponsors. Too bad theres little truth in advertising.

But another point that Archimedes made was an influx of fundamental islamists.

This is rare. Most people who come here come here to escape their own countries.

But thats what I think DrC's point is. I'll bet you that there are the same proportion of fundamental muslims to those of Middle east heritage as there are fundamentalist christians to the rest of us. (you know what i men.)

What we need to do is expose all fundamental islamists just like we need to expose all those fundamental wackos that are already here. Shine a big global light on them and watch them scurry.

Its not immigfrants you need to fear its fundamentalist wacko's.

Nothing that Buchanen says addresses this. Its an omission of truth or relevant statistics. and what do we call an ommission of truth. An ommission of statistics and facts? I call it lying.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 17 February 2002 10:05 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Most people who come here come here to escape their own countries.

PJ O’Rourke once said, in his usual sarcastic manner, “You wonder why American’s are ambivalent isolationists? We’re a nation of immigrants. We came here to get away from the “homeland”.


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 17 February 2002 10:39 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now on the otherside. What Archimedes and Buchanen should point out are inscidents like this. (link wouldn't work)

quote:
February 16, 2002

Parents charged in circumcision of daughter remain in custody
11-year-old girl

Anne Marie Owens
National Post
An Ontario couple charged with having their 11-year-old daughter circumcised in their home are being held in custody while the court determines whether they should go free.

The court case may provide rare evidence the surgical procedure, which is illegal in Canada under laws on female genital mutilation but is still widely practised in some parts of Africa and the Middle East, is being conducted in Canada.

The identities of the parents, who live in St. Catharines, Ont., are not being released to protect the identity of the girl, now 13.

The mother, 42, and father, 47, are very distressed by the charges, said their lawyer, Keith Newell.

Police will not reveal the religious or cultural background of the family, since such specific information could possibly identify the girl in a community with as small a multi-cultural population as St. Catharines.

But the circumstances about this case are not surprising to those who work with immigrants from countries that favour female circumcision as a rite of passage for young women.

"I feel so bad that this catastrophe would happen, because we could have prevented this," said Nadia Badr, founder of the Sudanese Women Association of Niagara.

She attempted to hold workshops and seminars over the past few years to educate women in her community about the risks of these procedures, but was stopped by a lack of funding.

"It is not a surprise to me that this would happen," she said. "Culturally, fathers and mothers think it's a good thing for their girls.... The parents have no idea it's wrong. They think it's protection for their daughter. That's why they're keen to do it, no matter what the cost."

She said she has heard of these circumcisions taking place underground, and suggests the practitioner involved in this case will likely be a woman from the family's ethnic community who learned in their homeland how to perform the surgery.

Malika Mounir, a settlement worker with the Multicultural Centre in St. Catharines, says it has been difficult to address the issue of female circumcision in a women's group for new immigrants because they are very reticent to talk about it.

"This doesn't surprise me because some of these people don't even know that it is illegal in Canada," she said. "We know that this goes on underground. This is something that a lot of these parents don't know they cannot do. They don't realize they can go to jail."

In this case, the parents are charged with aggravated assault for their role in arranging the surgical procedure.

Detective Sergeant James Mackay, head of the child abuse unit with the Niagara Regional Police, said investigators are still trying to identify the practitioner responsible for the surgery.

The girl's parents appeared briefly in a St. Catharines courtroom yesterday, but their bail hearing was postponed until Monday.

The father has also been charged with assault with a weapon, for allegedly hitting the girl on the back with a belt several times over the past few years.

The charges stem from a two-month investigation by the child-abuse unit and the social-welfare agency in Niagara


We must be extremely vigilant in prosecuting these cases. We do have to protect our values when we know we're right. This kind of shit is unacceptable. We cannot let this cruelty hide behind a shield of cultural identity.

But guess what, it never will, the majority will never accept this behaviour in America no matter how many people make it up. It is the culture of the uneducated.

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 18 February 2002 01:24 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Markbo:

quote:
It doesn't give evidence however that these people actually exist. Once there here I'm confident they'll buy into it.

There was a reference made to a Mexican group whose aim it is to make California a Mexican State. Does this group speak for a large majority of Mexican immigrants? Hard to say, but it is a concern with 7-8 million of them here illegally, according to recent government figures.

'lance, Nizkor, whoever they are, are kooks. They are only "well-respected" by the naive. Ain't it funny that in a site supposedly dedicated to the Holocaust, you find Pat Buchanan's name, because he takes an occassional contrary position to the Isreali one?

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 18 February 2002 01:36 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
'lance, Nizkor, whoever they are, are kooks. They are only "well-respected" by the naive. Ain't it funny that in a site supposedly dedicated to the Holocaust, you find Pat Buchanan's name, because he takes an occassional contrary position to the Isreali one?

A2K, I can think of only two possibilities, here. Perhaps you're genuinely unaware of the implications of what Buchanan says, which I suspect would be very difficult, given how explicit he is. He has said, openly, that for him it's all about race and ethnicity.

Or perhaps you're fully aware of his views and indeed share them, but, wisely, don't care to say so openly.

Your characterization of the Nizkor Project as "kooks" whose work appeals only to the "naive" inclines me to the latter interpretation.

How is it, incidentally, that you're so confident in using words like "kooks" and "naive" when you know nothing of Nizkor?

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 18 February 2002 01:50 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
How is it, 'lance, that a site supposedly dedictaed to the Holocaust has Pat Buchanan's name. Was he Eichmann's assistant, perhaps? Did he share a bunker with Barbie?

Why would a site supposedly dedicated to the Holocaust feature Pat Buchanan's name? Is it just possibly, that as soon as you don't march lockstep and agree with everything Isreal wants and demands, you are branded an "anti-semite", a "Holocaust denier" and worse. Exactly the sort of crap you were just laying on, and calling him a "racist"?

As I asked earlier, what is it with you folks that you can't actually discuss something rationally, and instead resort to calling people names that are supposed to end all debate?

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 18 February 2002 09:59 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There was a reference made to a Mexican group whose aim it is to make California a Mexican State. Does this group speak for a large majority of Mexican immigrants? Hard to say, but it is a concern with 7-8 million of them here illegally, according to recent government figures

All I am saying is that proportionately there are probably far less mexicans that want California to secede than there are militia members that want Montana to.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 19 February 2002 05:11 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, Archimedes, Pat Buchanan was not a member of the Nazi party. He is on a nizkor, a Holocaust Education website, because he is a Holocaust denier.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 19 February 2002 06:30 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
I hope you're right, Markbo. However, the changes in cities like Vancouver/Richmond, where an entire suburb now has street signs, shopping malls, etc. in Chinese certainly doesn't bode well for any concept of "melting pot."

ronb

Yeah, right. he's also a National Socialist, and a KKK. Anything else you'd like to scream about?


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mehitabel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1617

posted 19 February 2002 06:42 PM      Profile for mehitabel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i don t understand this archy
i was in medicine hat in 1953 and
they had street signs in chinese then
in that tiny little area with all
the good restaurants and ever
since i ve noticed the same thing all
over canada wherever there are
good restaurants there are going to be
street signs in chinese you
take toronto
please
joke
there are chinese signs for miles around
the market i love the market i
don t understand this guy s
problem
do you
question mark

From: all alone in the moonlight | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 19 February 2002 06:47 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Did you really? Well, I lived in Richmond in the 1980's, and I can assure you, Richmond did not have English optional as the language at home, work, and conducting business. Nor did house prices rocket to over $300,000.00, until dopey Chretien decided to create his "investor immigrant' program, thinking he could fleece a few wealthy Chinese.

But I digress. How is it you believe that a society that speaks only Chinese at home and at work is going to integrate into and adopt Western society? Magic, perhaps?


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 19 February 2002 06:53 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anything else you'd like to scream about?

What is it that right-wingers on this forum accuse anyone who disagrees with them of "screaming?"


From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 19 February 2002 06:59 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Why is it that left-wingers can't actually discuss a subject, and instead scream "racist" or "Holocaust denier" at anyone they disagree with? How many times has it been in this forum, Andy, that someone has claimed Buchanan is one or the other? (or perhaps Satan incarnate?)

BTW, ronb didn't "disagree'. In order to do that, he would actually have to respond to the argument. Instead, he screamed that Buchanan was a "Holocaust denier".

Don't you get the concept of "disagreeing"?

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 February 2002 07:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nizkor is one of the better informed human rights groups in the world. I have met with their specialists on Colombia, for example, and have found them to be particularly knowledgeable about such events as the massacre at Barrancabermeja, in which I had an interest.

I have noted, though, that Archimedes tends to make allegations, and then when asked for proof, either fails to provide it, or claims that he is too busy to do so. He did this with respect to some specious allegations about 1000 Miskito Indians killed by Daniel Ortega, for example.

Now, above, he has told us that Pierre Trudeau allowed Cuban airplanes to use Canadian airfields
to "go murder people".

On February 15th, Lance quoted Archimedes' comments about "that stupid pinko Trudeau" and requested support for the assertion made with respect to the airfields.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote from Archimedes:

that stupid pinko Trudeau was providing Canada's air fields to Castro for him to send his troops to go murder people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lance's request:

I'll probably regret asking, but... could you please elaborate a little on this?


I counted ten subsequent posts by Archimedes, yet no background which would support this claim. So do we presume that Archimedes is once again unreliable?

Finally, do we catch a whiff of totalitarianism in the following quote:
And the people who are immigrating to these countries might be good people, but they don't necessarily owe their allegiance to western traditions and heritage, but to something else altogether


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 19 February 2002 07:34 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nizkor is one of the better informed human rights groups in the world. I have met with their specialists on Colombia, for example, and have found them to be particularly knowledgeable about such events as the massacre at Barrancabermeja, in which I had an interest.

I have noted, though, that Archimedes tends to make allegations, and then when asked for proof, either fails to provide it, or claims that he is too busy to do so. He did this with respect to some specious allegations about 1000 Miskito Indians killed by Daniel Ortega, for example.

Now, above, he has told us that Pierre Trudeau allowed Cuban airplanes to use Canadian airfields
to "go murder people".

On February 15th, Lance quoted Archimedes' comments about "that stupid pinko Trudeau" and requested support for the assertion made with respect to the airfields.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote from Archimedes:

that stupid pinko Trudeau was providing Canada's air fields to Castro for him to send his troops to go murder people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lance's request:

I'll probably regret asking, but... could you please elaborate a little on this?


I counted ten subsequent posts by Archimedes, yet no background which would support this claim. So do we presume that Archimedes is once again unreliable?

Finally, do we catch a whiff of totalitarianism in the following quote:

"And the people who are immigrating to these countries might be good people, but they don't necessarily owe their allegiance to western traditions and heritage, but to something else altogether."

I say totalitarianism because of the suggestion that people within Canada or the US "necessarily
owe their allegiance" to specific traditions and heritage. We don't. And that is the point.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 19 February 2002 08:10 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Nizkor are lunatics. And ain't it funny that their "specialists on Columbia" that Jeff claims to have met don't even make it to their web-site?

www.nizkor.org

Did you meet them when you "lived" with the Miskito? OOpps, again, huh, Jeff?

And that stupid pinko Trudeau permitted landing rights in Gander to Castro's troop transports on their way to murder people in Angola. Escaped your radar screen, did it, Jeff?

Moreover, your own source has proven that at the very least, 74 Miskitos outright 'disappeared', not to mentioned the more than 1,000 who died fighting with the Contras when Ortega tried to remove them from their land.

You don't have to look far to find the facts, Jeff. Why, just 2 weeks ago I was reading an old National Geographic from 1986, where the writer was interviewing some of the Miskitos fighting with the Contras against Ortega when he tried to remove the Miskito from their land. Guess that didn't make the pink pages, huh?

Do you think maybe the people who disappeared under Pinochet just went to a neighboring country, like you claim happened to the Miskitos?

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 February 2002 09:49 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And that stupid pinko Trudeau permitted landing rights in Gander to Castro's troop transports on their way to murder people in Angola. Escaped your radar screen, did it, Jeff?

That's kinda out of their way. Wouldn't it have been more likely that Soviet technical advisers simply brought fuel down into Angola to refuel the planes?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 19 February 2002 10:40 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"And the people who are immigrating to these countries might be good people, but they don't necessarily owe their allegiance to western traditions and heritage, but to something else altogether."

I say totalitarianism because of the suggestion that people within Canada or the US "necessarily
owe their allegiance" to specific traditions and heritage. We don't. And that is the point.


That's a good point jeff house, but you're too kind I think. Another word comes to mind.

Query A2000: do you actually know any furners?


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 19 February 2002 11:55 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure what a 'furner' is. But I can tell you that I just played racquetball with a friend of mine in the military. Surprisingly enough, his skin color and mine aren't the same, but he is an American through and through, and he happens to agree with the premise; you come because you want to be a part of the country, or you stay home.

Does that make both of us KKK?


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 19 February 2002 11:58 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Actually, Doc, the closest flight is from Cuba to Gander, then on to Africa. What was the number of Cuban troops Castro sent to Angola to murder people, do you recall? 15,000 wasn't it? It's been a while.
From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 20 February 2002 05:22 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I hope you're right, Markbo. However, the changes in cities like Vancouver/Richmond, where an entire suburb now has street signs, shopping malls, etc. in Chinese certainly doesn't bode well for any concept of "melting pot."

As long as they learn english I figure its free speach.

I'd rather have that then the brutal Quebec language laws. Imagine Quebecer's are the only people in the world that discriminate based on language. No problem with race, religion or creed. But post your sign in English or have an apostrophe and your a criminal. Its fun watching them try to deal with the Internet businesses and english. THey're actually trying to dictate how businesses word their web pages now.

I'll take freedom of speech any day.

Do you think that china will start making accusations that we simply hate chinese people if they walk around in Vancouver. It's our proof that we aren't racist. I love it, if a business wants to target chinese people by using their language it is capitalism at its best and brightest.

The street sign thing I could see as a concern, do they actually use chinese letters??? If its simply names like Wu street or Chin street then who cares. If they use chinese letters then I could see a problem for people having the right to get directions or something.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 20 February 2002 06:46 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As long as they learn english I figure its free speach.

I'd rather have that then the brutal Quebec language laws.


That's really the key issue, isn't it? Whether a policy of "multiculturalism" asks people to join with the nation, or asks them to stay within their own enclaves, and feel beset upon, as is the case with that particular element in Quebec. And it is a large element, Quebec came a whisker away from separating.

Let's be frank, when France lost the war, if the British had done what the Spaniards had historically done to the losers of war, by taking away the French language, there wouldn't be such an artificial division between French Canada and English Canada. I fail to see how creating an enclave of people who speak a different language, and are encouraged to do so, will foster harmonious relations.


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 February 2002 07:00 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually, Doc, the closest flight is from Cuba to Gander, then on to Africa. What was the number of Cuban troops Castro sent to Angola to murder people, do you recall? 15,000 wasn't it? It's been a while.

I was talking to a guy who knows great circle routes and your suggestion is bilgewater and hogwash, since you double the length of the trip and you go in the wrong direction, to boot.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 20 February 2002 07:04 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Let me rephrase that statement. With most of the large Soviet transports of the day, there was a limited fuel capacity. They could not fly directly from Cuba to Africa. Therefore, they flew from Cuba to Gander to Africa. And they did this courtesy of that pinko Trudeau.

You might want to explain this to your circular friend.


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 February 2002 07:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So now we have Archimedes' repeat of his claim that Cuban troops flew through Gander on their way to Angola.

I was asking for proof, though, not just vehement insistence. There is a difference.

And it is laughable that, having claimed that Daniel Ortega murdered 1000 Miskito Indians, we now get the revised gospel that actually they were fighting with the contras at the time!

By that reckoning, Abraham Lincoln "murdered" several hundred thousand Americans. What a monster he must have been.

As for Chile, I agree with the Chilean government estimate of the number of disappeared. As for Miskitos in Nicaragua the figure of 70 which I cited came from an investigation by the Organization of American States. That is 930 fewer than the number so confidently asserted by Archimedes. His version is off by a factor of ten.

So, when asked to think about whether Nizkor or Archimedes is a better source on these matters, the choice is pretty easy. For those who have an honest interest in these questions, I recommend Nizkor.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 20 February 2002 09:02 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post

Here you are, Jeff. For $3.00, you, too, can read a National Geographic from 1985, where the writer interviews Contras fighting against Ortega's thugs who wanted to remove them from their land. It's the December issue, I hope you enjoy it.

http://www.abong.com/1985.htm

Is it only a crime when Americans remove the Indians from their land, Jeff? Nothing to worry about if your socialist heroes do the same thing 150 years after civilized countries ceased such practices, huh?

And as for proof about Gander, find it yourself. I saw photgraphs of that idiot Trudeau on Canada's airfields with the murderous dictator Castro, another one of your socialist heroes.

I wonder whatever happened to all that peace, love, and justice crap you folks belch when you support murderers like Castro and Che Guavara? Maybe Chomsky had a point when he spoke about media brainwashing.

BTW, why don't the nonexistant Columbia experts at Nizkor post anthing about Columbia at their web-site? They certainly seem to have lots of bandwidth to play with. Why not even one, single word on a subject you claim they are 'experts' in? You wouldn't fib, would you?


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 20 February 2002 09:17 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Here you are, Jeff. Trudeau, Castro, the Soviet Union, and Angola.

http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/Trudeau.html

In 1976, during the height of the "cold war", the Soviet Union was conducting a policy of aggressive expansionism in Africa and Central and South America; Cuba was being developed as a strategic forward base for Soviet naval and air forces. Castro was utilized by the Soviets as a proxy fighter in Africa. Trudeau, as Prime Minister, allowed Cuban planes supplying their invasion force in Angola to refuel at Gander, Newfoundland. That same year Trudeau visited Castro again, hailed him publicly, gave him a $4 million gift, and arranged a loan for another $10 million

You're welcome. No need to thank me, happy to help.


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 February 2002 09:40 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Real unbiased source there, pal. The guy's a right-winger in the Hayekian tradition, and didn't document his sources in that essay.

Try again, pal.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 20 February 2002 09:48 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Sure, Doc, here you go, from a PHD in Soviet studies, another Canadian who was awake.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/glazov/glazov10-11-00.htm


Just out of curiousity, how does this surprise you, given that the murderer Castro was the celebrated attendee at Trudeau's funeral? Maybe you missed it when Trudeau shouted "Long live Castro"? This wasn't long after Trudeau hugged Chairman Mao, the world's foremost murderer since Stalin.

If only Trudeau were a few years younger, he could have invited Uncle Joe into a circle of friendship, as well?

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 February 2002 09:54 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're still not understanding this concept of documentation of sources. When I mean documentation of sources, I mean that the source YOU cite has some actual reference to government documentation of regular departures and arrivals of Cuban planes at Gander, Nfld.

Incidentally, Frontpagemag.com seems to be one of your favorite right-wing news sources as well.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Archimedes2000
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1669

posted 20 February 2002 09:59 PM      Profile for Archimedes2000        Edit/Delete Post
Doc, I've got a great idea. How about if you hit the library, and search the microfiche of Gander's local newspapers for the year 1976, and see if there were any Soviet planes arriving in Gander? They might even have that photo I saw of Castro dressed in his combat fatigues and trudeau with his Rose (Ohh, how the Left loves the military when they hold the reins, huh?)

I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. Since the US military created the Internet, not every item that ever happened in the world has been put on a web page. You'll have to do your own research. But take heart, Vancouver has a nice library.

Hey, here's one more from the Calgary Sun. Am I getting warmer? Maybe I'll find the same thing stated in the CBC?

http://www.canadianheritagealliance.com/channels/news/2001/sept/sept21f.html

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Archimedes2000 ]


From: America | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 20 February 2002 11:50 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whoo! Are we almost at 100 posts in this thread already?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Secret Agent Style
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2077

posted 20 February 2002 11:51 PM      Profile for Secret Agent Style        Edit/Delete Post
I'm not going to comment on the Trudeau topic because I'm not familiar with it, but I hope everyone knows that the site that the Calgary Sun article was reposted on -- Canadian Heritage Alliance -- is a white power organization.
From: classified | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca