You seem to be exhibiting the very same same thing you are criticizing.

Than how can you be so sure they demand more allegiance?

Do you know why US Corporations advertise that way? What exactly does the actions of corporations have to do with the Canadian govt demanding allegiance?

Our ships were being sunk because we were actively involved in supplying countries who were fighting the Axis. We may not have committed troops at that point but we were very much involved. Maybe you should learn about the US Lend-Lease Act.

You are totally clueless on this one.

Do you really believe that the USG was simply bowing down to Saudi Royal Family demands?

No. Because the group of Saudis who were involved in the 9/11 attacks were also dissidents of the Saudi Royal Family.

Are you really that stupid or simply just letting your arrogance get in the way of reason?

The USG participates in opening markets to capitalism above all. Whether it prefers democratic ideals is secondary since it prefers a dictatorship over democracy if the dictatorship allows us access to its natural resources and markets.

ROFL thanks Smooth

I knew if anything was worth reading in that post someone would quote it. Glad you added your thoughts.

BT as well for finding that religious tidbit 

Well Smoothseas, seems like you had a good night hahaha. No, I wasn't wondering myself ... as I am still looking for the "one" who does. Not sure what any of this has to do with "intelligent design" though. Whoa ... I get it: this was an example of ID and why it is a delusion ... many people just don't seem very intelligent at times is all ... look at the RCC as a prime example of “Unintelligent Design” hahaha.

The nearest spiral galaxy like our own (Messier 31, NGC 224) is in the constellation of Andromeda which is over two point five four MLY from our crusty old Earth. And if one is prone to rely on the bible for their knowledge, they need to explain how light from that galaxy could have reached Earth in less than say ten thousand years (giving them a break)? I must say that we can look much further into the past which just adds more complications to their excuses (biblical prowess). Oh this is so much more enjoyable than trying to speak religion hahaha. Just thought I would throw this in … just for fun hehehe. We are on a collision course … bet that would be something to observe all right. Think we will still be here in four billion years … I think not. (Scale, 1 “= a million light years) Yea, the dinosaurs had no problem seeing Andromeda through their telescopes either, hahaha.

The Andromeda galaxy (M31) in full in this new image from NASA's WISE.

Map of the Local Group of Galaxies

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy

I don't think it is about intelligence. I think it is about simplicity. Why bother spending time learning about the world around you when you can simply provide the exact same answer to all of the questions and problems in the world, and then blame all the problems on the actions of everyone else. Especially when you are allowed to sin at will because you know you will be forgiven.

Smoothseas ... the world of gangsters and religion ... could one ask for better bedfellows. Most of the people I chat with here are nobodies like me who actually believe what they preach ... it's that they are so hypocritical in nature. If I am wrong, just show me my error – a little bartering – and we are still friends. Try telling a Christian they are wrong about anything … well you better get your argument in first is all, hahaha. Humm, not about intelligence ... have you listened to many of today's college students who never made the debate team ... food for thought, hahaha.

Most I know do not put their religion ahead of science or reason or hide behind their religion. And I live in a very rural, very conservative area with lots of churches.The only place I actually "see" the zealots are online and in the media. I don't blame people who turn to religion when they can't debate an issue. They were taught that God is the answer to all things unanswered. Oh well. It's simply not worth debating them in the first place since knowledge will never be gained in those situations.

As to most of the religious BS you see in the media and online, it is mostly political propaganda. It is a huge political machine where individuals make a living taking money from individuals to line their own wallets and fund political campaigns.

For the record, I made no such comment, here again, you are misquoting to do what now?  Make your argument sound better?  To discredit me?  I said poorly educated.  Both times, I said poorly educated.  I don't have the best education, but as I did graduate from a difficult to get into university and maintained a good GPA through my time there, I do consider myself to be better educated then most.  Much of the world is poorly educated.  Much of the world's population would have trouble graduating from high school.  Much of the world's population doesn't even go to college nor has any desire to.  This is the basis from which I say POORLY educated.  Again, don't add your own bias to my comment.  If you're going to quote me, please do it correctly.

First, its not a rant.  I thought we were having a discussion.  People of differing points do that occasionally.  No where in anything I wrote am I discrediting you, flaming, name calling, screaming, yelling, or attacking on a personal level that would be indicative of a rant.  I only pointed out a flaw in a single comment, then pointed out the flaw in your source as it pertained to the flaw in your comment.  I discredited your source, not you.  If you dispute it, fine, put it out there so I can read it.  If you feel personally slighted, that would be you adding in your own bias, not me.

I then followed up with a counter to your clearly stated opinion that the US spreads its values with war.  If you consider a differing point or information a person is willing to put out there for you to take in and consider as something that is purely dribble, then you are as closed minded as those you are speaking out against.  Deny it all you want, but its all right there in plain text.  If you don't want to read it, that's fine, you won't hurt my feelings, but don't call it "dribble from some "overly" educated arrogant rant."  What you are doing, that is a rant.  Note the difference.  By the way, I'm inclined to ask, did you really mean to say drivel instead of dribble?  Just curious, you really don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

Hey look, I can quote wikipedia.    Just poking fun since I think Myfist0's mood soured a little bit there.  I really am disappointed by that reaction though.  I guess I had built up a higher expectation in my mind.

He was posthumously recognized because that's how science is sometimes.  They don't recognize a person while they are alive, so they do it after they are not.  I did not say the RCC loves science and all its wonders.  Please, quote it for me if I did.  I would love to see it.  Like I said to Myfist0, please don't quote me as saying something I didn't or add in your own bias to my comments.  Forming an argument based on something that was never said won't gain you anything.  Plus, as we all know, good science has to be independently verified.  Results have to be repeatable.  That's how science works.  If someone performs an experiment today that doesn't follow with accepted science as we know it, I would hope that 400 years down the road when they are later proved to be correct in their assumptions and their experiments proven to be valid by independent research, they are posthumously recognized for their contributions.  Science, thankfully, is good like that.

It is true that the work was burned, but not for the either/or reason you present.  If you had finished the sentence that you took that from, you probably wouldn't have gotten the karma for the find.    But even though the work was burned, it in no way shape or form changes the fact that it was the church that gave Mendel the place and the funding to do his work and not the sciences.  The scientists at the time did in fact, criticize his work.  That is the reason I chose this example.  As I stated, to prove the point that the church does provide positively to research and science, even though it has gone out of its way to prevent its advancement in the past, all one has to do is admire the work of Gregor Mendel.  You cannot dispute that.  The abbot that succeeded him burned all of his paperwork to end the fighting over taxation since its not unlikely that his office would be filled with correspondences, legal notes, and other work relating to taxation disputes since it was Mendel's primary focus after being elevated to abbot himself, not to deliberately destroy his scientific work.  No where does it state that the abbot, the church, or other scientists intentionally sought and destroyed his works on behalf of the church or otherwise.  That is just not true.  Its far easier to have some underlings just clear out the entire office and throw everything into the fireplace.  Its very possible the succeeding abbot never even read a single page of anything that was burned, just had it pulled from where ever and tossed it in the fire.  To further the point, even if the succeeding abbot had read everything and fully knew what it was, it was work that was mocked by the sciences at the time, he has absolutely no incentive to keep any of it.

Stop wondering because the answer is yes, I do have common sense.  Enough of which that I don't have to listen to the media to figure out what I should be thinking.  Do you dispute that the US was attacked?  Do you dispute that everyone in congress wanted to punish anyone involved in said attack?  Do you dispute that congress declared war?  People are so quick to blame Bush for everything, completely ignoring the simple fact that the president can only send troops somewhere for 30 days.  After that, its congress, your elected representatives, people whom you voted for to make decisions on your behalf, that figure out what's going to happen.  Why do you think Obama couldn't make good on bringing the troops home when he said he would?  Its simple.  Its not his call.  Congress has to do that.  I don't hold it against him because its not his fault.  Just like I don't blame Bush for the war because he didn't declare war.  That's just good common sense right there.  If you can sit there and tell me that you really believe the same thing would still have happened even if the people of the USA decided that the attack on the twin towers was just bad luck and didn't want revenge in any way, shape, or form, then I would have to sit here and seriously question your common sense.

No actually, it doesn't.  Please share with me where exactly it comes from since its so obvious to you.  Just because I don't hear an issue and then proceed to pick one side or the other, doesn't mean I know nothing.  You picked a side didn't you?  How else could you make such a comment.  For all you know I may have been a central piece in many of the activities that the US has participated in on the world scale for the past 20 years.  In such a case, my common sense and knowledge would far outreach yours.  Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean someone else doesn't know it.  To borrow TwoBoobz example of choice, Galileo Galilei knew the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, yet, common sense at the time would tell you that the Earth was.  You would be one mocking him and questioning his theories, or you would be one deliberately attacking the church.  I would do neither.  I would be one listening to him and asking how he came to such an odd conclusion so that I could make my own choice when I feel enough information has been provided by both sides.

So you really don't care to hear anything that might be different then your own opinion, you'd rather mock it and make fun of it?  Interesting.

That would be you adding in your own bias, please don't do that.  I've not once said I think my ways are better, nor that my comments are fact.  They are true within the scope of knowledge that I possess and I shared them with you all to discuss.  I have not lorded over anyone, nor picked on them for their points of view, nor even made any backhanded comments to try to convince someone else reading that anyone here is full of themselves or otherwise.  I'm not making those comments.  Maybe I lack a piece of information on something, and maybe I have more information then someone else.  We won't know it if everyone just writes it off as dribble or drivel, whatever the case may be.  I'm just here commentating based on what my lifetime of learning has given me.

As I said, my personal experiences there proved to me that patriotism is over saturated in their media.  It was said to me by a Canadian, they force it onto their population so much that the population doesn't even realize it anymore, to which I went there to see for myself, on several dozen different occasions.  Its not like I just went there once, saw something and returned home validated by the experience, I actually had gone up there to disprove what I was told, having experienced the severe lack of patriotism here in the States (having done this pre 9/11/2001), only to be persuaded to change my mind.  The maple leaf is everywhere up there.  People here in the States fly the flags of their ancestor's home rather then their current home.  Its not like they're told to go ahead and fly someone else's flag just because you can.  When most of the influences in your life carry patriotic undertones, the government doesn't have to come out and say we demand your allegiance...  They already have it.

Because to me, it seems that they are told to.  Do you honestly believe corporations would spend the time and money necessary to redo their logos and every single ad campaign to include a foreign national symbol if they didn't have to?  Use that common sense here you all seem to want to talk about all of a sudden.  The answer is no, they wouldn't waste the money.  They are a business, the goal is to make money, not throw it away by redoing everything a second time.  What does it have to do with the government?  Everything.  If the government didn't make it so advertisements showed their national symbol, then there would be no reason to do it.  I don't see Tim Horton's rebranding their US stores with US flags or eagles.  Hell, use my example from before, you can do it right here from your very own computer: www.homedepot.com http://www.homedepot.com.mx/ and www.homedepot.ca  Right at the very top of the Canadian version, there's the flag.  The US version and the Mexico version?  Nothing. Let's look at a non US company like Honda.  The US site, no patriotic images, the Mexico site, no patriotic images, the Japan site, no patriotic images, the Canada site...  No?  Oh wait there it is, the 6th flash add in the cycle.  Maple leaf, and message saying made in Canada by Canadians...  The plot thickens.

The Lend-Lease act was signed in 1941 a year and a half after the war started and 9 months before the US entered the war.  I know quite a bit about it.  Our ships were being sunk well before that.  My comment still stands, at the ONSET of WW2, the US was still committed to not getting involved.  Check the wiki on the lend-lease act for this quote: "This program was a decisive step away from non-interventionist policy, which had dominated United States foreign relations since the end of World War I, towards international involvement."

From the first line of the page on Non-interventionism (again from the wiki so you can easily verify its existence): "Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. It is a form of "realism"."

Your premise that our ships were being sunk because we were in fact involved is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Please read the second sentence of the second paragraph and report back.  Honestly, I seem to be very much more informed then what you are giving me credit for.

If you're going to quote me, do it correctly.  I said: "Desert Storm 1, for as much as conspiracy people want to believe it was about oil, the US only got involved because the Saudi's (our ally) demanded it out of fears that once done with Kuwait, the Iraqi's would go after them."  Do you really think a nation would openly support the US especially considering the hostile nature of the region to the US?  To further expand your knowledge, the US was sending assets to Saudi Arabia as of around mid 1990, the UN decided the US was to lead a coalition of nations into Kuwait to liberate it in early 1991, to which we did.  Had we not already had so much already there to protect our Saudi allies, we would have taken a supporting role to the UK, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, instead of the other way around.

That may be true as well, but my point is still the primary and overwhelming factor.  Not a non issue as you're making it out to be.  The US was given access to search and capture anyone involved, that is why we didn't invade.  Just because they were dissidents to the current government there as well is a bonus point so to speak and was probably a contributing factor in the Saudis granting that access.  It had little to no consequence with our government's decision.

I'm not being arrogant, and I believe I've proven myself to be far from stupid.  Name any one single country that would step up and prevent the US from invading any of those countries.  Go ahead and name one.  That's all I ask.  Just one.  The way I see it, the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and kicked out their governments.  No one on this planet disputes the fact that we invaded, removed their governments, and began setting up new ones.  Who rose up to stop us?  Did any country send in military power to stop the US from achieving its goals of removing their respective leaders from power?  Many countries around the world spoke out against what we were doing when we first started.  No one tried to stop it.  In fact, several came around to eventually support us.  That is what I base that comment on.  If you dispute it, be my guest and do so.  But as the facts stand, the US is in a position to invade and not suffer global backlash in the form of military action at this present time.  That is not arrogance or stupidity.  That is a factual observation that you should be able to see for yourself as well.  Arrogance and stupidity would be ignoring history, especially one that is as recent as that.

The US, as per what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan after the removal of their governments, has participated in setting up new democracies and thus the spread of democracy itself.  Having a new trading partner is only possible if that government allows it.  Case and point comes from Cuba.  A well known dictatorship who's population is willing to die to get at our freedoms and goods.  The US has had no interest in opening up the market of one of its closest neighbors, in fact, it has done the exact opposite and block all possibilities.  If the US held to the ideal of opening its market up to anyone anywhere, we have a market right there 90 miles to our south that our businesses could take huge advantage of.  They would go in with virtually no competition and basically take over the market without a fight.  I'm pretty sure labor laws aren't as inclusive as they are in the States, so there's a pretty close to home workforce to take advantage of as well...  that's a huge resource.  Just think of all of the money that could be made by importing authentic Cuban cigars?  So no.  Capitalism above all is not a policy of the US government, not on paper, and not in practice.

No you should read the entire history, not just a random sentence in Wikipedia. We were involved in Vietnam for a long time before we openly sent troops. Try starting at about 1950, but knowing the history going back before then will give you an even clearer picture of the overall situation. Reading Wikipedia is not informed in my book so don't think you deserve any credit because you don't.

You are best to wait a few years before you comment on what has been set up in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq the government is actively arresting and possibly "eliminating" political opposition in other ways. That doesn't sound like democracy to me. In Afghanistan so far all we have is a big mess that seems to have spread into Pakistan.

We have supported dictatorships in the middle east for over 50 years and are actively supporting several to this day. That doesn't sound like spreading democracy to me. The USG policy is "stability" and it doesn't seem to matter how they attempt to achieve it.

That is why we have often "installed" cooperative governments, and then supported them. Then if they "run astray" we often find a way to get rid of them.

Take off your rose colored glasses.

No. He never promised anything. He spins his words very carefully in order to get his flock to the voting booth. He always said "depending on the conditions on the ground". You need to "read between the lines" to understand presidential politics.

Some of the Neutrality Acts were repealed in 1939 right after Germany invaded Poland. We were supplying the war effort well before the Lend-Lease Act. It was enacted to continue supplying the war effort because Winston Churchill said Great Britain could no longer afford to pay up front. We also reinstated the draft in 1940. Now that certainly sounds like "gearing up for war" and not "continuing isolationist policy".

Some things are opinion however I am not mocking your opinions I am mocking your obvious ignorance of facts. History is based on factual events not opinions.

Actually I do know. If you had any clue about foreign policy you wouldn't be relying so much on Wikipedia to try to pull yourself out of the corner you have backed yourself into.

I know the history, I'm at least trying to provide facts that you can easily look up.  Wikipedia is not the source of my information, but its a place I can easily send people to verify my claims.  You, on the other hand, offer me nothing.  If that's how you want to handle things, then fine, I'll stop giving references.  France turned the entire region into colonies for itself as early as the mid 19th century and screwed everything up paving the way for unrest all the way through WW2.

Try starting at 1950?  We were there in 1941.  Why don't you try starting from there, or better yet from around the 1850's when France moved in and started playing colony creator with the region.

I deserve a lot of credit for at least providing facts, or at least information that isn't disputed.  Having at least read the pages makes me more informed then someone who hasn't.  And again, I cite them because its what's readily available for me to send to you to look at, not because I hold it as absolute truth.  Again, provide me with something rather then just your dismissal.  You're really making me not want to continue this based on the fact you have nothing to back your claims up.  Its almost unfair of me to proceed.

I agree, I will before making a definitive statement of fact, but you cannot argue that the attempt hasn't been made, and isn't still being made.  There are obstacles to overcome, but its a process.  My previous comment was a statement of observation and should be treated as such.  It may turn out to be wrong, but it could also turn out to be absolutely correct, but that's the beauty of hindsight, we won't know for sure until time has passed.  You can always come back to it and say, this is what you said then.  I stand by it.  As per what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan after the removal of their governments, the US has participated in setting up new democracies, and thus has participated in the spread of democracy itself.  You cannot disprove that.  In fact, if you know anything about what has happened, you must support it.  It just doesn't matter that things aren't going as well as we would like to see.  Success or failure isn't part of that statement.

What other ways?  Killing?  People are being killed just for trying to go vote.  That's what happens when closed minded people are unwilling to accept change.  That isn't my fault, nor yours, nor any soldier there trying to stop it.  It will continue until it becomes accepted.

This is such an overly broad comment, I can't even do anything with it.  We've had a big mess in the region since we helped to create Israel.  The region has been a "big mess" since the creation of Christianity.  Its been a big mess even before that.  Pakistan is only pissed that we flew in without telling them beforehand.  But then again, as per the 2001 declaration, we will hunt down and capture/kill all those responsible for what happened on 9/11.  Opportunity to strike appeared, we took action.  Pakistan has actually been pissy with us since we cut off international aid to them when they announced they had nuclear weapons back in the mid to late 90's.  They don't go against us because they aren't stupid, but they don't really help us with anything either.

The policy starting at the end of WW2 and the beginning of the cold war was contain communism.  In that sense, yes, stability is the preferred choice as long as its not communism providing the stability.  I find it interesting that you would propose the spreading of capitalism which has been known to destabilize countries once their people start climbing out of poverty and realizing freedoms, and then switch to a we are about stability argument.  For your further information, After the ending of the cold war, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, containment became a non issue.  These are the first two countries since then that have had their leaders removed from power by anything other then an internal coup.  This would be the first opportunity to spread democracy rather then contain communism.  A change in policy from twenty years ago isn't going to make things change with countries that are tied together with policies created over 50 years ago.  That's not how it works.  Those affected by the new policy would be those that are new, or those that like the change and switch over to it.

I don't disagree, but you fail to define the type of "installed" cooperative governments.  One can definitely claim that the "installed" governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are cooperative governments.  I've done more then enough to attempt to prove that the intent is for these governments to be democratic in nature.  We assisted in 'installing' the government of South Korea.  We 'installed' the government in Japan.  We 'installed' the government of Israel.  We helped to 'instal' the government in Taiwan.  These aren't exactly considered dictatorships.  Prior to the Vietnam Conflict, we technically helped to 'instal' the government there and we definitely failed to get rid of it when things "Ran astray".  So this comment of yours is proven to be inaccurate at best.

Really?  I've seen no evidence presented on your part that would lead me to believe that I'm the one wearing the rose colored glasses.  I think you've just made up your mind about my arguments a couple of days ago and are unwilling to understand what is being presented to you.  I have to say, at this point, if all I'm going to get are factless comments, I'm going to stop bothering because its just like being in an argument with a Christian over the validity of their God existing.  They too provide nothing other then their own statements and treat those as if they were facts everyone else be damned.

I will most definitely agree that he spins his words.  He has been quoted repeatedly in saying that he will bring the troops home, and again, it was not a comment directed at him, its about his ability to do so, Again, its congress that makes the call, not the president, so it doesn't matter what he said or how he said it or what lines need to be read in between, he, cannot bring them home.  Only Congress can.  You comment does nothing to disprove my statement.

Some, yes, but as Great Britain and several other European nations were trading partners even before the war started, I don't see how you consider commercial shipping a step up in involvement.  Again I will restate that I said "at the ONSET of WW2" 1939 is the onset of the war thus chronologically speaking 1940 comes after that.  Onset Onset Onset...  Pick up a dictionary and read what that word means and stop presenting arguments that clearly fall outside of the context of what I said.  You're not helping anyone.

I tried to present links to facts as best as I could, you have not.  Your claim to my ignorance of said facts is just not true and I've proven by being the one to link to resources rather then just give "take my word for it that these are facts" arguments and you attempted to mock me for it...  History is based on what the winners or most influential people says happened, not necessarily the facts.  In this day and age its becoming much harder to fake the truth, but before mass media, it was actually pretty easy.  How else was the church able to maintain the position that the Earth was the center of the universe when they were clearly proven to be absolutely wrong?

I'm not backed into any corners and wikipedia is just a resource that is easily available to me to cite and present to you.  It is in no way shape or form, my sole device for learning or being educated.  I grew up in an age without the internet.  I'm much more reliant on books, but as I can't open it up to a page and shove your face into it, I'm stuck resorting to what I have available.

Because we were shipping them arms, ammo, and fuel oils. You do realize that those things are transported on commercials ships don't you? Repealing the neutrality act was done so that we could legally ship them arms and ammo. Unfortunately it was you who said we were not involved until after the attack of Pearl Harbor so I am not presenting arguments that fall outside your claim. I am presenting facts that directly prove your claim to be false.

The decision to bring the troops home from Iraq was an agreement made between the Iraqi government and US State Department. The only part congress has taken is to grand stand on the floor of congress to score political points for their next election.

No. History is based on fact. It may be presented in a biased way however there are certain underlying facts that are very well documented.

And yet you still seem to get your "facts" wrong. Presenting incorrect information is not opinion it is presenting incorrect information.

That is something that certainly can be disputed, Many people believe that the foundation of democracy is based upon the concept of popular sovereignty, where the system of government is created by the will of its own people. There are many people who believe that democracy must be created from within. That is one of the reasons the actions taken in Iraq were heavily debated prior to the invasion.