-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Ramblings Of An Old Man
- Thread starter thcri
- Start date
B_Skurka said:
Your link has nothing at all to do about “the foreign contribution in the Civil War.”
Your link lists Americans who were immigrants.
Here is Emma Lazarus’ beautiful poem as it appears on the Statue of Liberty
“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Foreign countries threw these people away.
They were the “homeless, tempest-tost, wretched refuse, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
America embraced them.
When these people were fighting for the Union, they were as American as you or me.
B_Skurka said:
Yes, I do stand corrected. The subtleties of our education systems. I'm still pretty certain that the youth of Canada were being taught that millions of Europeans fought for the "North" but what was not taught was that they were actually European emigrants.
My kids are going through French Immersion and French first language education here, and I recall my son's Canadian history teachings were a little biased towards France when they discussed the formation of Canada. I said to him, "that's wrong", but of course it was just the British-influenced version of my history teachings versus his French-influenced versions.
I certainly hope so! I hope you, as a nation, don't take whatever the government presents to you as fact and that you question every war that you engage in and measure whether it is worth the price of courageous citizens. And if it is not worth the lives that have been spent, I would hope that you would learn from that.Dutch-NJ said:
beds said:
Both American and Canadian parents have to be ever vigil to protect our children from the “revisionists.”
The “progressive ” and “revisionist” LIARS have infiltrated our schools and are poisoning the minds of our children.
California is currently attempting to REQUIRE schools to recognize the contributions of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
For years, universities have been teaching students the glory of communism.
Is this what freedom loving people are working and paying taxes to support?
Is this what freedom loving people have given their lives to build and defend?
beds said:
You don't have to "hope." That's the way the American system is designed to work, and has worked for 230 years.
All anyone has to do is read or listen to the news and they will find that our government is constantly being questioned.
I hope you don't confuse cowardice and treason with patriotism. That's what the enemies of freedom have been trying to do.
Dutch-NJ said:
I went to college in the 70's. We were not taught the 'glory' of communism. We were taught that the concept of communism if enacted as designed would be a utopia. However, due to human greed and human nature being what it is, we are not likely to see a communism utopia ever.
bczoom said:
No, of course if you choose to be in the military than you are bound to serve in whatever mission is given to you. I was just considering whether you enlist or not. If I feel that the government will deploy me in non-freedom-serving causes (if upholding freedom is my reason for enlisting), then I won't enlist.
Vin, Mith, beds and all our other international members.daedong said:
I've been reading this thread with great interest but have withheld posting (until now).
I wholeheartedly agree that each of the allied countries have contributed in many wars as well as other international aid endeavors.
As I consider the gist of many parts of this thread, I believe I can see/understand the points of all parties involved.
My perception and looking at this from a very high level is that the USA gets a lot of attention primarily due to the USA’s influence in many international affairs. Our financial and military capacity has put the USA in a position whereby it’s almost expected by either the US government or the international community that we need or have to step up to the plate to assist. Sometimes it’s welcome, other times it’s not. With rare exception, the decision is not made by the populous of the country.
Also, we rarely request any form of payment or restitution for our assistance other than hopefully a thank you. I think what irks many of us is that we often do everything we can to help and more often than not, we're still considered the bad guys. Heck, we gave immensely to the Indian Ocean tsunami relief but we're still pretty much hated in the area. It's like the world demands our help but despises us whether we do so or not.
Are Americans arrogant? I would say many are, but not all. As already noted, our “arrogance” can be viewed as our strong feelings towards patriotism. As a whole, we are a very proud people. Now, many (within the USA as well as internationally), can be seen as taking it too far. When that occurs, we are be seen as egotistical, bigheaded and condescending.
I do wonder what would be different in everyone’s mindset and attitude if lets say either Australia or the UK was the sole (and I hate this word) superpower?
I think an unjust cause is a personal opinion. There is no correct answer. I don't feel that the Iraq war was warranted or just. It may have turned out to be that way, but not when it started. That is my opinion. Many will disagree. I choose diplomacy over combat. I'm Canadian and belong in Canada. I also think that the job should have been finished in Afghanistan and by a larger multinational U.N. force.bczoom said:
beds said:
Your logic seems confusing.
If you’re a citizen of a country that has a record of deploying troops in non-freedom-serving causes, you won’t enlist in the military.
But, if that same country drafts you into the military to fight in a non-freedom-serving cause, then you will serve.
I’m I understanding your position correctly?
Last edited:
beds said:
"We didn't have to do the minuets of diplomacy. We got down to business." ~ Margaret Thatcher
"Being prime minister is a lonely job... you cannot lead from the crowd." ~ Margaret Thatcher
'Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and importance, although difficult, is the highroad to pride, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction." ~ Margaret Thatcher
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." ~ Margaret Thatcher
I admire the “Iron Lady’s quotes.”
Dutch-NJ said:
I don't see where the confusion is. As a citizen of a country, I will do what is asked of me to do - follow their laws, pay their taxes, serve when called upon. If I don't agree with the choices the government is making militarily, then I will:
A - not enlist in the armed forces
B - try to vote to change the policies I don't agree with
C - move if I am that passionate about my views
If Canada were to decide tomorrow that they wanted Alaska back because it was turning out to be a cool tourist spot and I was conscripted, I would serve. However, if there were no conscription I wouldn't voluntarily enlist, would want to change my government's view and would consider moving to East Gosford NSW where the screams of my liberal, tree-hugging, poorly armed neighbours couldn't be heard!
mtntopper
Back On Track
Please re-examine the title of the thread. “Ramblings Of an old Man”.
Definition of Ramblings:
Not to the point
1.Continuing for too long and with many changes of subject.
This thread has turned into “ramblings” that seem to polarize people into inescapable corners with diverse view points that inflame each other and do not enlighten, educate or inspire as should be our goal. Our international members are being chastised for their open and honestly expressed views of how they see the United States. Sorry if you disagree….Just my view……and I am certain not the conviction of many others.
Definition of Ramblings:
Not to the point
1.Continuing for too long and with many changes of subject.
This thread has turned into “ramblings” that seem to polarize people into inescapable corners with diverse view points that inflame each other and do not enlighten, educate or inspire as should be our goal. Our international members are being chastised for their open and honestly expressed views of how they see the United States. Sorry if you disagree….Just my view……and I am certain not the conviction of many others.
chrpmaster
New member
I think what has been seen as arrogance is actually the tired recognition that the US must be involved in lots of areas of the world so that peace, justice and human rights have a chance to exist. This is done with the help of our allies (thank god!). Nothing would make all of us happier than to not ever need to deploy our troups in harms way. Unfortunatly that just isn't reality. Hiding from these problems only allows the bad guys to get stronger.
If it wasn't for our (US and allies) work many more people would be hopeless or dead.
Just my take on it all.
If it wasn't for our (US and allies) work many more people would be hopeless or dead.
Just my take on it all.
beds said:I don't see where the confusion is. As a citizen of a country, I will do what is asked of me to do - follow their laws, pay their taxes, serve when called upon. If I don't agree with the choices the government is making militarily, then I will:
A - not enlist in the armed forces
B - try to vote to change the policies I don't agree with
C - move if I am that passionate about my views
If Canada were to decide tomorrow that they wanted Alaska back because it was turning out to be a cool tourist spot and I was conscripted, I would serve. However, if there were no conscription I wouldn't voluntarily enlist, would want to change my government's view and would consider moving to East Gosford NSW where the screams of my liberal, tree-hugging, poorly armed neighbours couldn't be heard!
Serving to “take back” Alaska would be a big mistake on your part. First of all. Canada NEVER owned Alaska.
Before the British could steal Alaska from Russia in1867 through the British North America Act, the United States bought Alaska from Russia.
America bought and paid for Alaska fair and square (no war). So, if you were to serve in the Canadian military to “take Alaska back,” you’d have a real fight on your hands.
Let’s say Canada did try to take Alaska back by force, and America won that war too (surprise - surprise). I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be an American citizen, so you move to East Gosford, NSW.
As soon as you settle down in East Gosford, the Guringai people want their land back claiming the English stole it.
The Guringai claim the tree-huggers are hypocrites because they spoiled nature by introducing industry starting in 1788, when Arthur Phillip led the British military to steal their land by military force.
Would you help your poorly armed neighbors defend against the people East Gosford was stolen from?
Where do screaming liberals get their distorted views about facts and history?
mtntopper said:
One of our international members started off by responding with an inflammatory post.
Lies and distortions do not enlighten or educate, but they inspire rebuttal.
If someone can't stand the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen.
Sorry if you disagree….Just my view.
Dutch-NJ said:
Good one Dutch! But no, the point of not fighting the U.S. and moving to NSW is because I never wanted Alaska and didn't feel we should take it and don't want to have Dargo's 50 calibre bearing down on me. Not because I don't necessarily want to be a U.S. citizen.
Hey, we won the 1812 one....Dutch-NJ said:
The french down there came from here. Cajun is a derivation of Acadian which is our East coast. In the 1750s the British trounced the French in Acadia and tossed them out of the country like so many muslim extremists in Australia. They became poor, huddled masses and found Louisiana and called it home! The rest is history!B_Skurka said:Why not just take New Orleans? They have some french speakers down there . . . they'd fit right in.
B_Skurka said:Why not just take New Orleans? They have some french speakers down there . . . they'd fit right in.
The Canadians NEVER owned New Orleans either. America bought that too from France.
Louisiana’s Cajuns (Acadians) are French speaking. They settled in Louisiana after they were expelled from Canadian in 1755 because they refused to swear allegiance to the British Crown.
Just another example of America welcoming what foreigners viewed as “refuse.”
Now that America has groomed and buffed that “refuse” into a valuable resource, foreigners are jealous.
beds said:Hey, we won the 1812 one....
I wasn’t referring to the War of 1812, but since you mentioned it, why do you claim Canada won?
Read the Treaty of Ghent. That proves England didn’t win anything. In fact, England gave up land.
After the Treaty was signed, but before it was ratified, the Battle of New Orleans was fought.
Although grossly outnumbered, General Andrew Jackson and his group of “Hill Billy” volunteers, Cajuns, Barataria pirates, Choctaw Indians, and former black slaves kicked the British army’s ass.
Where do screaming liberals get their distorted views about facts and history?
B_Skurka said:
With all Canada's spending on social welfare, even if New Orleans was for sale - which it isn't, Canada couldn't afford the deposit on what New Orleans is worth.
Being the American capitalist that I am............ How much for Canada?
Canada would be a great investment for the U.S.A., just like Alaska and the Louisiana Territory.
The liberal Canadians are well on their way to running Canada into the ground.
Dutch-NJ said:
Yeah, if our tax revenues from all of the oil that we sell to yas'alls dried up we'd be in a real pickle!
The land I live on was battlefield in that war and it is not in the U.S..Dutch-NJ said:
Brian posted a picture of the glacial recession in Dargo's rock thread and it clearly defined Canada as being under what was a glacier! I liken the Canada/U.S. border to the England/Scotland border - "let's let those crazy bstards live up there in that godforsaken land if they want it."