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


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » US has betrayed all its "allies" over the years!

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: US has betrayed all its "allies" over the years!
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 March 2003 01:09 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I love how Cellucci spouts this nonsense about how the US would be there for Canada or its other historic allies in any situation. Let me remind everyone of the following:

1. WW1 started in 1914, NOT 1917 when the US deigned to help Canada and Britain.

2. WW2 started in 1939, NOT in 1942 when the US entered the war only as a result of Pearl Harbour. Otherwise they were content to just sit and watch while Hitler conquered all of Europe.

3. In 1956, the British attacked Nasser over the Suez Canal. The US betrayed the British and forced them and the Frenchy and the Israelis to withdraw.

4. In 1982, the fascist dictaorship of Argentina attacked Great Britain in an unprovoked assault on the Falkland Islands. The US did not lift a finger to help the UK, even though Margaret Thatcher was PM. Apparently that hideous bitch Jeanne Kirkpatrick convinced Reagan that it was more important to support the fascist dictatorship in Buenos Aires that was supposed to be a "bulwark against communism", as opposed to supporting the world's oldest democracy.

If Canada had gone to an open war against Spain over turbot, does anyone seriously think the US Navy would have helped Canada? If Canada decided to invade Bolivia tomorrow, does anyone seriously think the US would feel obliged to help?

I only wish that Chretien and company would kick a dumb political hack like Cellucci back to Boston where he belongs!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adam Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3034

posted 28 March 2003 03:53 AM      Profile for Adam Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Canada had gone to an open war against Spain over turbot, does anyone seriously think the US Navy would have helped Canada?

Spain is one of our NATO allies, we would never have gone to war with them.

However I see your point and its well taken. I think unless we were actually attacked by someone the US would just give us the cold shoulder.


From: Manitoba | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
TrappedinTO
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3080

posted 28 March 2003 04:51 AM      Profile for TrappedinTO        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't imagine what country would have supported us if we had gone to war with Spain over turbot. Why is that a war "all about oil" not worthy of our support but a theoretical conflict all about _fish_ is something our allies should get behind (not counting the ally we would be attacking)?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 28 March 2003 07:13 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
....In going to war with Spain over the last lonely Turbot, we would have been deffending the right of South and Central American countries to their natural resources.....

Spain did claim they had an "historical right" to the turbot, and no doubt they'd like to extend that historical right to any gold or mineral deposits they missed in Mexico, Peru, etc.


Seriously though, while the turbot stakes weren't as high as other issues, the fact remains both Britain and the U.S. abandoned us on it, and would not hesitate to abandon us on more serious issues if they did not impact upon their own self interest.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 28 March 2003 12:45 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The thousands of Canadian flags flying over British fishing boats during the Turbot war make me question the assertion that Britain didn't support us.

Most of Stockholm's claims are pretty bogus anyways. The US did support Britain over Argentina during the Falklands war, delivering sidewinder missiles and other ammunition to the British fleet. As far as not supporting Britain, Israel and France during the Suez canal, hands up anyone here who thinks they were doing the wrong thing?

And am I the only one who finds it ironic that anti-war activists are chastizing the US for not wanting to get involved in foreign wars in 1917 and 1939?

[ 28 March 2003: Message edited by: sheep ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 28 March 2003 12:50 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And am I the only one who finds it ironic that anti-war activists are chastizing the US for not wanting to get involved in foreign wars in 1917 and 1939?

In which case, you'r emissing the point. This line of argument is used to counter the chest-beating coming from the U.S.A-niks who maintain that America dragged the western world over the top by the scruff of the neck during the first two world wars, when they were Johnny-Come-Latelies to both conflicts.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca