quote:Originally posted by ElJay: ... people coming into what is supposed to be a celebration thread by someone who made it into his country's miliatry after at least a year of working to pass the physical fitness test and ripping on said military. How would you like it if someone came to your graduation party and told you how much your school sucked?
I was very troubled by this, too. Still am.
Thanks for naming it directly, ElJay.
Yup, me, too. Thanks, Eljay, for articulating this so well.
Blayne, I'm proud of you. You did good. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Add me to the list of people who think trumpeting our nation at the expense of others is unnecessary. Even if it seems provoked, all you have to do is look who's doing the provoking.
When you're the biggest kid on the block there's no need to go around saying so -- everybody already knows.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa, whoa. My Canadian-bashing was all in fun. I have a lot of respect for the country. It was not meant to be a huge flame war about which country has the bigger boxer shorts.
I just wanted to trade some cliched jokes about Canada while fully expecting to be referred to as a dumb redneck in return. I feel bad now for starting down a road that lead to such idiocy (of course, my own posting was a form of idiocy, it was just intended for comedy).
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
were mine in god taste? The Newfie joke is the standard for Canadians.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: So you're saying you're more like the Cub Scouts, then, eh?
No.
I would like to remind some of the Americans in this thread of a couple of things regarding the Canadian military, since apparently my first post was insufficient:
First, about 2,500 Canadian soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan, largely deployed to the dangerous Kandahar province. We led combatoperations there for some time after you deployed most of your troops to Iraq. (America currently has about 15,000 troops in Afghanistan.) Our government doesn't tell us much about what Joint Task Force 2 gets up to, but the Americans they've worked with in Afghanistan seem very appreciative. Also, an interesting factoid: a Canadian sniper holds the dubious honour of the world's furthest confirmed sniper kill, from about 1.5 miles.
Second, some Canadiansoldiers have been killed by U.S. friendly fire or friendly bombings. (Others have been killed as well, of course, including Americans.)
It's certainly true that Canadians and Americans have a penchant for mocking one another (e.g. Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans"). In general, I don't mind the friendly sparring either, as should be evident from my first post in this thread. But when the jibes compare soldiers who are currently fighting and dying alongside yours to Girl Scouts or Cub Scouts, it seems like you're dancing on their graves.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And frankly i think whether we like it or not the US navy would be in the northwest passage.
I think you've hit on a very important point there, Blayne. I'm not sure how many Americans heard about this, but at the recent conference between the American, Canadian, and Mexican heads of state in Quebec, we were reminded that the U.S. (among others) rejects Canada's claim of sovereignty over the waters to our north. I believe that's one of the reasons we started making significant investments in our military under the Liberals a few years ago, and more recently under the Conservatives this has been particularly extended to naval investments and, even more specifically, new armed icebreakers.
Surprisingly enough, I believe this is a sound investment. Obviously we have no hope of actually defending ourselves from the might of the American military, but all we need to do is keep our military is powerful enough that the U.S. won't deploy troops to our territory "for our own protection" (unless we actually become engaged in a military conflict with someone else in which case, as Lyrhawn notes, the U.S. would probably be the first nation to come to our aid). This is just as true for ground and air troops stationed on our soil as it is for naval troops stationed on our waters. It'll help with any potential trouble that might be brewing in the long term with Russia and China, too.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stopped reading when things started getting ugly, but you were holding your own in the beginning, Blayne.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It's certainly true that Canadians and Americans have a penchant for mocking one another (e.g. Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans"). In general, I don't mind the friendly sparring either, as should be evident from my first post in this thread. But when the jibes compare soldiers who are currently fighting and dying alongside yours to Girl Scouts or Cub Scouts, it seems like you're dancing on their graves.
I just thought I'd point out that I have a large portion of my family in the U.S. Military. Many of whom have fought in Iraq (including my brother, who may be facing a third tour). I have also known several people who have lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That being said, if you had come to me and referred to my family and friends as a bunch of screw-up wackos who shoot friendly combatants (which you actually sort of did), torture innocent prisoners, or murder civilians even though they've done none of these things, then I would feel like you were dancing on their careers/graves.
But if we were engaged in friendly banter, and you, say, referred to the U.S. Military as a crazy bunch of redneck yahoos, then I'd just take it in the spirit of the conversation as a light-hearted joke. To assume that it was intended as a slight towards people who fight and die just reeks of hyper-sensitivity.
I mean, really? Cub-scouts? Girl-scouts? Do you actually think I believe that? Do you actually think I believe the Canadian Military is not a force to be reckoned with? I mean, we'd totally zerg rush you if we got into a war, but that doesn't mean, pound-for-pound you wouldn't do as much as a comparable U.S. soldier if not more (probably more because you'd be fighting for your own country and loved ones, which is usually a good motivator). And to be honest, I love Canada. I don't want it to go anywhere. I'd be the first to join the revolution if we decided to invade a country like Canada that has been our friend and ally for so long.
I'm not upset by your comments. I'm just a little surprised that you'd react so strongly to them. I'd like to think that I can crack a joke about Canada and not expect it to be interpreted as a bullying attack.
I've always thought of Canada as the sort of cool kid who doesn't really get into fights in the school yard, who tries to get along with everyone, who was into that one really cool band before everyone else, and is generally popular with everyone. The U.S., on the other hand, is sort of the captain of the football team. Everyone knows him, and some people want to be his friend, but he can be a bit of an ass. He also tends to push people around who are a bit different than him and he keeps to just a few close friends (most of whom are also on the football team).
I'd much rather be Canada. So when I tease, it's only because I like you guys, it's not because I'm trying to knock you down a few notches. I have little to be proud of in the U.S. these days.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the tensions in both countries coming directly out of being engaged in military actions -- with the inevitable errors, misjudgements, and assorted forms of political fallout -- are probably weighing pretty heavily right now on people in both countries.
Canadians tend to have a very self-deprecatory sense of humor (I think), whereas the stereotypical American style is more of the tongue-in-cheek, tall-tale tomfoolery. This flows fairly well when there aren't such tensions in the air, but when there are, it can go hand-in-hand with additional problems. I suspect it's rarely intentional to be insulting in this group of friends, but it may well be that it's hard to see when one is poking an especially sore spot if one is used to the lighter air outside war.
I'm so sorry about the effect these military conflicts have had on your family and friends, Primal Curve. It's a hard, hard time for many people. I don't speak for twinky, but from my perspective, I think he was merely saying that in the context of some serious losses of this sort (friendly fire), flippancy in this matter is particularly galling. I very much doubt he meant to cast aspersions on the whole of American military service.
(And, admittedly, there are many more American service personnel involved, since it is such the bigger country, so you will see more of all sorts of incidents from American personnel -- it's a numbers thing, at least in good part.)
I think a lot of us are just kinda sore and achy at this time in history. I know I am. It hurts to deal with jests on either side. Maybe we can get back (eventually) to the space where jests are more appropriate again.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: To assume that it was intended as a slight towards people who fight and die just reeks of hyper-sensitivity.
That's the disconnect, I think. I didn't make that assumption -- I assumed your posts were made with the friendliest of intentions. My big post was intended to say "Hey guys, our soldiers are out there doing a lot of hard stuff too, maybe the right response to a linked slide show from one such soldier's funeral isn't to compare them to the Cub Scouts."
Also, I appreciate the kind words about my country. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: Curse you for deflecting my shot taken in the dark.
Blayne: Nothing you said was taken by at least me to be anything but in good fun. If others are offended by the conversation mood I'll stop, I don't NEED to make fun of Cananda.
------
That is very interesting that the US disputes your claim of sovereignty of the waters to your north. Do we use Alaska as grounds for this?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: My big post was intended to say "Hey guys, our soldiers are out there doing a lot of hard stuff too, maybe the right response to a linked slide show from one such soldier's funeral isn't to compare them to the Cub Scouts."
<turns red>
I had no idea what you were talking about until I revisited the first page.
I didn't click on the link in your post. I generally don't follow blind links on forums when I'm at work. I thought you were posting a link to a military site or something. I didn't realize it was for a funeral or I wouldn't have replied at all.
I now understand the reaction everyone had. I am really, deeply embarrased.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I wasnt entirely aware that the US actually outright denies our rightful claim of sovereignty, darnit now I feel the urge to get my newfie friends together and pay Bush a visit.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the link was to CBC News. I didn't say anything about the link since I figured it spoke for itself, but I forgot that some people (myself included, actually) don't follow unrecognized links from work.
posted
Well, we don't claim that the Northwest Passage is OURS, Bush says it is an international waterway. And if you listen to Colbert, since we're the leader of the world, that means it's ours
Frankly, when you look at the actual passage, I think it's Canada's or at least key portions of the passage are. If Canada used their entire naval force and some well placed fortifications, and an airbase or two, I think they could defend it with choke points, maybe, but they'd have to be willing to shoot, and the other country would have to back down, as Canada couldn't repel a serious aggressor like Russia or soon even China, if they really wanted to make hay out of it. But given how many routes there are, and how many islands can be skipped or gone around, it might be too much of a maze to defend without a massive new shipbuilding program.
Canada has a lot involved in winning though. If ships are allowed through there unchecked, I think it makes Canada less safe, and gives them a potential environmental disaster. They should be allowed to have control of waters in an archipelego chain like that. Besides, it'd be a huge financial boon if they could sell passage through the strait for the same price that Panama charges, a huge boon.
I'm sure we'll come to a fair solution in the end. But Canada may find they don't have quite as many friends around to back them up when everyone stands to profit more from it being international than purely Canada's. I'd like to see the US back up Canada's claim of soveriegnty, and in return I'd like to see Canada give the US access, maybe for everything except oil tankers, which should allay environmental concerns.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
