Syriana: More Kool-Aid Propaganda

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
THE DESPICABLE SELF-LOATHING PREACHED BY 'SYRIANA'
by Amir Taheri
Arab News
January 7, 2006


The would-be ruler of an oil-rich Arab state is planning a policy reform that includes allowing girls to go to school, and signing an oil contract with China. But days before he takes over he is assassinated when a remote controlled bomb destroys his bulletproof limousine in the middle of the desert.

But who would want such an enlightened prince out of the way?

The answer given in "Syriana", the new Hollywood blockbuster starring George Clooney, is simple: The murder was planned and carried out by the CIA, the dirty-tricks arm of the United States of America.

But why would the US want an enlightened Arab leader murdered at a time that President George W. Bush is publicly calling for such leaders to emerge in the Arab world?

Again, the answer provided by the scriptwriters is straightforward: The US government is controlled by Texas oil interests that cannot allow any Arab state to sign an oil contract with China.

I saw the film in a pre-release showing in New York last month and did not expect it to be already available throughout the Arab world in a pirated videocassette version. And, yet, in the past week or so I have received more than a dozen emails from Arab friends throughout the Middle East citing the film as, in the word of one of them, another "sure proof" that the US will never tolerate democratic leaders in that neck of the wood.

According to an old saying one can never convince anyone who doesn't wish to be convinced. The makers of "Syriana" are preaching to the converted if only because an extraordinarily large number of Arabs are comfortable in the certainty of their victimhood. Long before "Syriana" hit the silver screen those Arabs were convinced that whatever misfortune has befallen them is due to some conspiracy by a perfidious Western power.

In North Africa where France ruled for more than a century every shortcoming, and every major crime, is blamed on the French. From Egypt to the Indian Ocean all was the fault of the British, until the Americans emerged as a more convincing protagonist in the fantasyland of conspiracy theories. (In Libya where Italy ruled for a while in the last century, even the fact that the telephones don't work in 2006 is blamed on the Italians.)

Would it change anything if one were to remind the conspiracy theorists that none of the high profile political murders in the Arab world over the past century had anything to do with the US or any other foreign power?

Let us start with Rafik Al-Hariri, Lebanon's former prime minister, who was murdered last February. Was he killed by the CIA or, as Abdul-Halim Khaddam, Syria's former Vice President, now asserts by a criminal coterie in Damascus?

The list of Arab leaders murdered since 1900 is a long one. It includes six prime ministers, three kings, a ruling Imam, seven presidents of the republic, and dozens of ministers, parliamentarians and senior military officials. Every single one of them was killed either by Islamist militants (often from the Muslim Brotherhood) or by pan-Arab nationalists or by radical Arab security services.

That many Arabs should welcome the suggestion that their tragedies are due to evil doings by foreigners maybe understandable.

It is less so when so many Americans come together to make a film to portray their nation as evil incarnate.

"Syriana" is not only about a single political murder. It also depicts the US as the power behind much of the terrorism coming from the Middle East. The film shows American oil companies as employers of Asian slave labor while the CIA is the key source of supply for bombs used by terrorists.

So, why would any self-respecting American want to write or direct or play in "Syriana"? If the US is as evil as they suggest should they not be ashamed of themselves? And if the oil companies control the US government, presumably including the Congress, should we conclude that Hollywood is the last bastion of American democracy?

One answer to why anyone might want to make such a film is, of course, the very American desire to make money. And as things stand today there is a large market for dissent in the United States. In a recent trip to the US I noticed that unless you took a dig at the Americans no one would even listen to you. In one session when I politely suggested that Bush might be a better choice than either Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein I was nearly booed by my American interlocutors.

The truth is that there is a market for self-loathing in the US today and many, including the producers of "Syriana", are determined to cash in on it.

Here is how the incomparable Evelyn Waugh described the present American situation when the makers of "Syriana" were still nothing but glimmers in their daddies' eyes: "There is no more agreeable position than that of dissident from a stable democratic society."

The reason is simple: In a stable democratic society in which you are protected by law you can lie, cheat, and mislead, all in the name of political dissent, and be rewarded with fame and fortune.

The fact that the CIA is little more than a costly leaking device used by rival groups within the US establishment to lump accusations and counter accusations at one other need not bother the makers of "Syriana". The CIA masters, for their part, would be pleased with "Syriana" if only because it claims that they can do anything at all!

The self-loathing party in the US would do well to ponder the second part of the above mentioned quotation from Waugh: " The more elaborate the society the more vulnerable it is to attack, and the more complete its collapse in case of defeat."

The self-loathing party in the US, which includes a disturbingly large part of the elite, is doing three things.

First, it says that America, being the evil power it is, is a legitimate target for revenge attacks by Arab radicals and others.

Secondly, it tells the American people that all this talk about democracy is nonsense if only because major decisions are ultimately taken by a cabal of businessmen, and politicians and lawyers in their pay.

Lastly, and perhaps without realizing it, the self-loathing Americans reduce the Arabs to the level of mere objects in their history. It is the almighty America that decides every single detail of Arab life with the Arabs as, at best, onlookers and, at worst, victims of American violence. The Arabs are even denied credit for their own terrorist acts as "Syriana" shows that it is not they but the CIA that decides who kills whom and where.

Pretending to be sympathetic to the "Arab victims of American Imperialism", the film is, in fact, an example of ethno-centrism gone wild. Its message is: The Arabs are nothing, not even self-motivated terrorists, but mere puppets manipulated by us in the omnipotent US!

By suggesting that the US has stolen the Arab oil and decision-making process, the makers of "Syriana" are, in fact, trying to rob the Arabs of something more important: Their history. The amazing thing is that so many Arabs appear to be ready to help the thief.

Or, perhaps, it is not so amazing after all.

Adversaries in history often end up resembling each other. So it is, perhaps, not surprising that the Arabs are learning the art of self-loathing from the Americans while the Americans develop a taste for Arab-style conspiracy theories.

This item is available on the Benador Associates website, at http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19175
 
You're joking right? You don't think there are any nations that try to corrupt, coerce, or bribe their way into trying to control the resources of a foreign country? This isn't just something that America does. It's something that Germany, France, Britain, Russian, China and others have done. Sometimes it's for oil, or gas. Diamonds or precious metals. Sometimes even grains and food. You could have substituted any nation for "USA" in Syriana and replaced "oil" with almost any commodity and the story would be the same. Look what Britain did with Iran before the 50's. to steal their oil. Look what the CIA and Kermit Roosevelt did with Iran to get the oil in the 50's. Then, look was Briatin re-did in the late 70's with Irans oil again. Then there's Armand Hammer with Russia's oil. It goes on and on and on. All of this was declassified by the CIA. We even now know that the "terrorists" in Iran weren't in fact terrorists when they seized those 65 Americans. It's all available for you to read. I think they must have got some of the story line from the declassified CIA files. Syrianna reads sometimes very close to the games that happened around Irans oil. Many similarities. You'd have to be clueless or ignorant if you don't think nations around the world do this kind of stuff often. It's not an American phenomenom..it's a world phenomenom.
 
fossten is just jumping onto Bill 'O Reily's bandwagon of hating Hollywood. They forget that this is a MOVIE, which is ENTERTAINMENT, which thanks to our most esteemed veterans, they are FREE to NOT PAY A DIME to go SEE the MOVIE if they don't like the subject matter. They either never bother to read the little disclaimer at the end of the credits that says "The persons and events portrayed in this movie are NOT REAL and any similarities to real people or events is purely coincidental", or they can't comprehend the meaning of that disclaimer. :rolleyes:
 
RRocket said:
You're joking right? You don't think there are any nations that try to corrupt, coerce, or bribe their way into trying to control the resources of a foreign country? This isn't just something that America does. It's something that Germany, France, Britain, Russian, China and others have done. Sometimes it's for oil, or gas. Diamonds or precious metals. Sometimes even grains and food. You could have substituted any nation for "USA" in Syriana and replaced "oil" with almost any commodity and the story would be the same. Look what Britain did with Iran before the 50's. to steal their oil. Look what the CIA and Kermit Roosevelt did with Iran to get the oil in the 50's. Then, look was Briatin re-did in the late 70's with Irans oil again. Then there's Armand Hammer with Russia's oil. It goes on and on and on. All of this was declassified by the CIA. We even now know that the "terrorists" in Iran weren't in fact terrorists when they seized those 65 Americans. It's all available for you to read. I think they must have got some of the story line from the declassified CIA files. Syrianna reads sometimes very close to the games that happened around Irans oil. Many similarities. You'd have to be clueless or ignorant if you don't think nations around the world do this kind of stuff often. It's not an American phenomenom..it's a world phenomenom.

Fossten...don't you just love the simple view that so many have of this world? Hey Rocket...it was called the cold war. Lots of stuff went down that could be seen as questionable if not taken in perspective. If if weren't for the West's foreign policy we'd be surrounded by Commies right now. Quit demonizing the United States and her allies.

Oh, and as for the little thing about the "terrorists" in Iran...what exatly does it take to earn that label in your little world?
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
fossten is just jumping onto Bill 'O Reily's bandwagon of hating Hollywood. They forget that this is a MOVIE, which is ENTERTAINMENT, which thanks to our most esteemed veterans, they are FREE to NOT PAY A DIME to go SEE the MOVIE if they don't like the subject matter. They either never bother to read the little disclaimer at the end of the credits that says "The persons and events portrayed in this movie are NOT REAL and any similarities to real people or events is purely coincidental", or they can't comprehend the meaning of that disclaimer. :rolleyes:

True but nobody loves to hate America lately more than Americans. Case in point. The Manchurian Candidate Circa 1962...Bad guys=Chinese and Soviet Communists. The Manchurian Candidate Circa 2004...Bad guys=Evil Americans
 
Speaking of Clooney...

Excerpt borrowed from The Left Coast...


George Clooney Takes Credit for John Kerry's 2004 Loss

When it comes to self-absorption, Hollywood reigns supreme.

But George Clooney seems to have taken the narcissism level up another notch.

Clooney recently revealed that when it comes to election results the single most important factor in winning or losing is the presence of, well, Clooney.

According to Ireland Online, the actor-director believes that John Kerry lost the 2004 U.S. presidential race because Clooney had turned down an invitation to ride on Kerry's election choo-choo.

"Kerry asked me to ride on his train - he had a train going cross-country after he was nominated and some actors went on board. I called him and explained that I couldn't do it," Clooney said, adding, "I'd hurt him. I'd actually caused him harm at the polls."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe Clooney could run for VP with Genna Davis heading up the exec spot! LOL. Hollywood is so full of itself. After promoting the crap out of that sitcom/drama/propaganda whatever Commander-in-Chief show, seems the show is falling on it's ass and might not make a second season. What is Hillary going to do about that? What do you want to bet she makes a cameo appearance? There is so much to dislike about the left, I don't even know where to start anymore.
 
RRocket said:
We affirm that the world’s magnificence has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing car whose hood is adorned with great pipes, like serpents of explosive breath - a roaring car that seems to ride on grapeshot....

Hey Ron! This wasn't your car, was it?:eek:

Oh, that's right. You drive a GS. :D
 
I'm sick and tired of movies that always paint the United States as the bad guy. You fibs can go watch them and drink the Kool-Aid they serve at the theater all you want. I used to like Clooney and others like him who have gone LWW. Now I will never patronize their sorry movies again.
 
FreeFaller said:
Oh, and as for the little thing about the "terrorists" in Iran...what exatly does it take to earn that label in your little world?

The "terrorists" in 1979 (Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK) are the same ones who tipped off the US about Irans nuclear capabilities and who had in recent years been fighting against Iran's rulers. Bush even noted in his speech about the Iran nuclear facilities that it had been outed by a "dissident" group in Iran.

Many MEK fled to Iraq after several of their coups failed in Iran. Since the war in Iraq, Iranians have been attempting to cross into Iraq on bounty hunting missions to kill the former MEK members. These Iranians have either been captured or turned around by US forces.

So when they do bad things they are "terrorists". But when they help, they are "dissidents" or "freedom fighters".

That's why I said "terrorists". Terrorists then, freedom fighters now...
 
RRocket said:
The "terrorists" in 1979 (Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK) are the same ones who tipped off the US about Irans nuclear capabilities and who had in recent years been fighting against Iran's rulers. Bush even noted in his speech about the Iran nuclear facilities that it had been outed by a "dissident" group in Iran.

Many MEK fled to Iraq after several of their coups failed in Iran. Since the war in Iraq, Iranians have been attempting to cross into Iraq on bounty hunting missions to kill the former MEK members. These Iranians have either been captured or turned around by US forces.

So when they do bad things they are "terrorists". But when they help, they are "dissidents" or "freedom fighters".

That's why I said "terrorists". Terrorists then, freedom fighters now...

Here is what the US Department of State says about the MEK. Where do you get your fantasy information?

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
From: Country Reports on Terrorism, 2004. United States Department of State, April 2005.

Comments on the content of the material should be sent to the U.S. Department of State

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Names
The National Liberation Army of Iran
The People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI)
National Council of Resistance (NCR)
National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)
Muslim Iranian Student's Society


Description
The MEK philosophy mixes Marxism and Islam. Formed in the 1960s, the organization was expelled from Iran after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and its primary support came from the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein starting in the late 1980s. The MEK conducted anti-West-ern attacks prior to the Islamic Revolution. Since then, it has conducted terrorist attacks against the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad. The MEK advocates the overthrow of the Iranian regime and its replacement with the group’s own leadership.

Activities
The group’s worldwide campaign against the Iranian Government stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorism. During the 1970s, the MEK killed US military personnel and US civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar. Near the end of the 19801988 war with Iran, Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces. In 1991, the MEK assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia and Kurdish uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north. In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas. In April 1999, the MEK targeted key military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff. In April 2000, the MEK attempted to assassinate the commander of the Nasr Headquarters, Tehran’s interagency board responsible for coordinating policies on Iraq. The normal pace of anti-Iranian operations increased during "Operation Great Bahman" in February 2000, when the group launched a dozen attacks against Iran. One of those attacks included a mortar attack against the leadership complex in Tehran that housed the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President. In 2000 and 2001, the MEK was involved regularly in mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids on Iranian military and law enforcement units and Government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border, although MEK terrorism in Iran declined toward the end of 2001. After Coalition aircraft bombed MEK bases at the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the MEK leadership ordered its members not to resist Coalition forces, and a formal cease-fire arrangement was reached in May 2003.

Strength
Over 3,000 MEK members are currently confined to Camp Ashraf, the MEK’s main compound north of Baghdad, where they remain under the Geneva Convention’s "protected person" status and Coalition control. As a condition of the cease-fire agreement, the group relinquished its weapons, including tanks, armored vehicles, and heavy artillery. A significant number of MEK personnel have "defected" from the Ashraf group, and several dozen of them have been voluntarily repatriated to Iran.

Location/Area of Operation
In the 1980s, the MEK’s leaders were forced by Iranian security forces to flee to France. On resettling in Iraq in 1987, almost all of its armed units were stationed in fortified bases near the border with Iran. Since Operation Iraqi Freedom, the bulk of the group is limited to Camp Ashraf, although an overseas support structure remains with associates and supporters scattered throughout Europe and North America.

External Aid
Before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the group received all of its military assistance, and most of its financial support, from the former Iraqi regime. The MEK also has used front organizations to solicit contributions from expatriate Iranian communities.


Funny, nowhere in there do I see them described as "freedom fighters," nor do I see anything about them having tipped us off about Iranian nuclear capablilities. That information came from the Mossad.

Furthermore, you do realize don't you, that the present President of Iran, the same crackpot who wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, has been identified by SIX of the former hostages as one of the terrorists who held them hostage?

So are you exonerating him for having "tipped us off" to the Iranian nuclear capablility, by threatening to use it against us?
 
RB3,

I am not exonerating them for anything, nor is the US really exonerating them. The Bush administartion cited that this was the group that brought them info. I'm not making this up. For the last little while, MEK has been fighting AGAINST the rulers of Iran. Many members have moved to Iraq. With the possible military action against Iran in the future, the US will be counting on MEK to help them in Iran. There have also been calls from Capital Hill to remove them from the list of designated terrorist groups. I did a quick search on Google, and found this article fast (but this isn't the article I orginally read) but it pretty much said the same thing. If you also search "MEK and Capitol Hill" you'll see related articles about having them removed from the list. But anyways, here's an article : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7369510/site/newsweek/

Hope you find this helpful..
 
RRocket said:
RB3,

I am not exonerating them for anything, nor is the US really exonerating them. The Bush administartion cited that this was the group that brought them info. I'm not making this up. For the last little while, MEK has been fighting AGAINST the rulers of Iran. Many members have moved to Iraq. With the possible military action against Iran in the future, the US will be counting on MEK to help them in Iran. There have also been calls from Capital Hill to remove them from the list of designated terrorist groups. I did a quick search on Google, and found this article fast (but this isn't the article I orginally read) but it pretty much said the same thing. If you also search "MEK and Capitol Hill" you'll see related articles about having them removed from the list. But anyways, here's an article : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7369510/site/newsweek/

Hope you find this helpful..

I did find it helpful. It agrees with me. It says US Intelligence knew about Iran's nuclear capablilities BEFORE the group made it public, NOT that they "tipped US off" as you claimed. It also says this relative to their status as a terrorist organization: Bush's statement "does not represent a change in policy toward the MEK or NCRI but simply reflects that others outside the intelligence community believe that Iran has a covert nuclear-weapons program."

As far as their "move to" Iraq, did you even read this from the State Dept. report that I posted already: "Over 3,000 MEK members are currently confined to Camp Ashraf, the MEK’s main compound north of Baghdad, where they remain under the Geneva Convention’s "protected person" status and Coalition control. As a condition of the cease-fire agreement, the group relinquished its weapons, including tanks, armored vehicles, and heavy artillery." In other words, they're kinda like...prisoners.

From that you think we are to be "counting on them" in the fight against Iran? That's a stretch. We're going to release them from the camp and give them their weapons back? No, we will attempt to count on our allies(which may also be a stretch), one of which likely won't be Canada.

As far as them having supporters on Capitol Hill, yep, there are indeed some terrorist allies on Capitol Hill. They aren't setting the foreign policy of the United States, thankfully.
 
Well I don't think we'll help with Iran unless it has the full support of the UN, which Iraq did not have. We ARE helping in Afghanistan, with 1,100 of our forces there, and an additional 1,000 going next month. It doesn't sound like alot, but our deployable forces are only about 25,000 at any given time.

I was aware some who fled Iran were being held captive in Iraq, since they are on The List, but conservative estimates put MEK at about 20,000 members, while MEK themselves claim 50,000 members. Either way, that is a sizable number of people that will help to make the current government's life miserable in Iran should the US start an operation. And when they do help, they will be "freedom fighters" and not "terrorists"....
 
RRocket said:
Well I don't think we'll help with Iran unless it has the full support of the UN, which Iraq did not have. We ARE helping in Afghanistan, with 1,100 of our forces there, and an additional 1,000 going next month. It doesn't sound like alot, but our deployable forces are only about 25,000 at any given time."


Yes, I'm well aware that you feel you should surrender yourselves to the UN. Your country seems intent on becoming France, but without the good food. If you had a free press, you might be more aware of what a corrupt organization the UN is.

RRocket said:
I was aware some who fled Iran were being held captive in Iraq, since they are on The List, but conservative estimates put MEK at about 20,000 members, while MEK themselves claim 50,000 members. Either way, that is a sizable number of people that will help to make the current government's life miserable in Iran should the US start an operation. And when they do help, they will be "freedom fighters" and not "terrorists"....

It is solely your opinion that these terrorists are "freedom fighters." Your original implication that Bush agreed with you was baseless. And your further claim that the persons who took the hostages in Iran were not terrorists was outrageous. The very taking of hostages for political reasons is, by definition, an act of terrorism.

Apparently you also missed the line in the State Department report that the MEK are Marxist-Islamic radicals. In other words, they simply want to replace the present crackpot with their own crackpot. I don't think that's what the US has in mind.
 
RB3 said:
Yes, I'm well aware that you feel you should surrender yourselves to the UN. Your country seems intent on becoming France, but without the good food. If you had a free press, you might be more aware of what a corrupt organization the UN is.

The very same UN whose resolutions the US said Saddam was ignoring..which was their major reason for going to Iraq. It was always one of the 1st things out of Bush's mouth was that Iraq had violated this or that UN resolution (his favourite was 1441 I think). So which is it? You can't have it both ways. If it is so corrupt, why did your Pres. constantly cite those resolutions in trying to drum up support for the war? If you want me to believe how corrupt the UN is, please ask Bush to stop citing the resolutions from such a corrupt organization every time he reminds us why he was justified in invading Iraq.

Oh..and we do have a free press, unless you have evidence that says otherwise? The only time our press isn't free is when we have an absolute publication ban for a trial..not unlike the US. I see how free your press is when photos of American coffins coming home are disallowed. Besides, I not only read our papers, I read US, Britain, and Aussie papers too. (I'm fortunate that I live 1000 yds away from the US so our stores carry most of your major US papers)
 
RRocket said:
The very same UN whose resolutions the US said Saddam was ignoring..which was their major reason for going to Iraq. It was always one of the 1st things out of Bush's mouth, was that Iraq had violated this or that UN resolution. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Oh..and we do have a free press, unless you have evidence that says otherwise? The only time our press isn't free is when we have an absolute publication ban for a trial..not unlike the US. I see how free your press is when photos of American coffins coming home are disallowed. Besides, I not only read our papers, I read US, Britain, and Aussie papers too. (I'm fortunate that I live 1000 yds away from the US so our stores carry most of your major US papers)

That Bush attempted to work with the UN to appease whiners in Europe and Canada doesn't make the UN any less corrupt. And his attempt to work with them doesn't mean he won't take action without their permission, when it is in the best interests of the United States. So yes, I can have it both ways. Bush also appointed to the UN an ambassador who has taken them to task for their dysfunctional behavior.

Your major broadcast news source is the CBC, owned by the Canadian government. Your other broadcast news sources are an amen chorus of the CBC. Until recently, Fox News Channel was illegal in Canada.

The coffins are not a freedom of the press issue; if they were you wouldn't know anything about them, or know the number of casaulties. That is an issue of taste, and respect for military families.

As far as reading other papers, good for you. Apparently they're all still liberal ones.
 
Hey, speaking of Canadians. I hear the Conservatives might take the election this week, ending 13 years of tyranny by the Liberals in that country. I thought liberalism was so great. Why is Canada moving conservative? Did they get the Bush bug?



Everybody say a prayer for Ron.

Just a snippet I ran across. From Reuters....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some polls suggest the Liberals will get their lowest percentage of votes in any election since independence in 1867, even lower than the 28 percent they collected in 1984.

If Harper wins, it will be his reward for uniting Canada's two fractious right-wing parties at the end of 2003 and creating the Conservative Party.

Harper would be the first prime minister to have spent most of his life in the conservative Western province of Alberta. He promises to lower taxes, clamp down on crime, clean up government, cut health waiting times and return some power from the federal government to Canada's 10 provinces.
 
MonsterMark said:
Hey, speaking of Canadians. I hear the Conservatives might take the election this week, ending 13 years of tyranny by the Liberals in that country. I thought liberalism was so great. Why is Canada moving conservative? Did they get the Bush bug?

Would that were true. Sadly, a Tory victory next week will only mean Canada will move to about the equivalent of a middle of the road Democrat in this country, from a point even further left. It would be nice, though, if the pointless insults of the USA and Bush, coming from the present administration, were diminished.

Canada in some ways is where the United States was in the early 1960s, prior to the growth of our modern Conservative movement, and the rise of the alternative press to counter the bias of the "mainstream press." Canada still has only the "mainstream press", with the same uniform liberal bias as we had in the days when CBS/NBC/ABC/New York Times/Washington Post were the only game in town.

In the Canadian media, any war is always wrong, Bush is always wrong, and there is very little deviation from the official line. The CBC had a terribly biased documentary on the US news media a few months ago, claiming that outlets such as Fox News were all far-right propaganda. As a result, all my Canadian relatives, Conservatives who should know better, assured me Fox was propaganda, since that's what the CBC told them. No matter that none of them had actually seen Fox.
 
MonsterMark said:
It is a move in the right direction. Sometimes you have to start out taking baby steps. ;)

No kidding; it took us forty years to get where we are now, with another forty years of repairing to do IF we can keep power.
 
Our Liberal Party here has done terribly over the last several years. The Liberals have been involved in so many scandals and lies ("Adscam" being the most prominent at the moment) that it's astounding. In addition, their gun registration scheme has failed, costing us millions in overuns. It was supposed to originally cost $119 million, with $117 million coming from licensing fees, and the remaining $2 million to be paid by taxpayers. It has ballooned to over $1 Billion, and the ultimate cost expected to be $2 Billion! Then there's EI (employment insurance). By keeping the rates artificially high for the last 10 years, we now have a surplus over $45 billion. There are laws on our books that say this surplus should be returned to the ratepayers. It hasn't, nor is it ever expected to. And who knows where it has been spent. Our Liberal Energy Minister promised our hydro rates would not go up (it was one of their campaign promises to cap our rates), and merely a few weeks after getting the post, he flip-flopped and our rates went up. Thus far, in the nearly 2 years the current Liberal government has been in office, they have accomplished almost nothing that they promised. The new Conservative Party of Canada has promised us reduced taxes, tax credits for child care and most importantly, the Federal Accountability Act. While I can't be sure that the Conservatives with be better than the current Liberals, the inaction, lies and outright sliminess of the Liberals is enough to warrant change. I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore you to tears.

And for those of you who aren't sure how our election process works, here's a quick primer:

We have 308 electoral "ridings" in the country. Voters in each riding elect one MP (member of parliament) to represent that riding in the House of Commons. We do not vote directly for a Prime Minister candidate. The party that wins the most ridings is asked to form the government, and the leader of that party become Prime Minister. We still do the ballots with a pencil and an "X" since there aren't usually more than 4 choices per ballot (in my riding anyways)

Most people in my riding have been very pleased with the work our MP Jeff Watson has done. Even hard core Liberals have many positive things to say about Jeff. I suspect he'll get back in, but I don't think the Conservatives will be able to form a majority government, so it's entirely possible that the Conservatives may have a dificult time passing some of the policies they really want to pass. Election Day is tomorrow, so if anyone is still awake, I'll keep you posted! :)
 
MonsterMark said:
It is a move in the right direction. Sometimes you have to start out taking baby steps. ;)

Agreed. Just didn't want anyone to think we were going to wake up Tuesday morning to a new Bush ally to the North. There's still a long way to go.
 
RB3 said:
Agreed. Just didn't want anyone to think we were going to wake up Tuesday morning to a new Bush ally to the North. There's still a long way to go.
My point is that even Canadians are starting to wake up. As long as we are going in the Right direction, slow and steady is fine with me.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top