The morality of war - Man's inhumanity to man

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This feels like you're getting cute. No, it did not hit 60% before the war, but prior to the actual invasion Gallup found a 59-35 split for the war on the extreme ends. 

It's not "getting cute" to point out you're exaggerating the numbers by about 10 percent. 

Moreover, the reason I initially responded is because you seemed to be painting this picture that the American public was hoodwinked by not only the Bush administration's lies but also the media.  Were some of them?  Sure.  But not nearly to the extent you were depicting.  There was a lot - and intense and active - opposition to the war both immediately before and after the invasion.  I remember this because I was one of them.

[Kalbear]

Also, the iraq war didn't last long enough for people to be upset. The US won in under a month. Even the people that were mad about it didn't really feel an effect of it - until the US had to stay in for years, had ISIS and aq fighters, etc. But that was more obamas problem.

[James Arryn]

8 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

Norway supported the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. I literally coordinated some of their direct support (aviation) assets.

Iceland supported the US in Iraq. Yes, even one of the most peaceful states on Earth provided Soldiers as well as moral-political support during war.

***

Gentlemen -- neither state has a spotless record; worse, if we consider their entire histories, which is more reasonable -- they are bloodied. Of course (imo), both still have great records as civilized (post-war era) peoples and would perform well as war crimes investigators / prosecutors, but their support in Iraq and Afghanistan carries some degree of responsibility for any war crimes commited there (knowingly or unknowingly; directly or indirectly).

Now, if want a truly innocent state (at least as far as external warfare goes), I'd recommend Vanuatu, located somewhere in the Pacific (i.e., peaceful in character or intent). Surely their nature affords them expertise. Here's an image of their Supreme Court facility.

Canada refused to take part in the invasion and/or declare war, only sending peace-keeping non-combat troops to help with the reconstruction. But that’s not the interesting bit. Canada, being as a former PM described, in bed with the elephant, has had a long history of being able to assess and predict American behaviour with remarkable precision. I know in those tests where you are asked how each US party thinks the other party would answer a series of questions, I missed on the Dems by ~ 6%, pretty spot on, but was within 1-2% of predicting Republican answers, meaning that I have a more accurate understanding of American thinking the farther it gets from my own, which I think is probably pretty representative of the Canadian assessment of America in the broader sense. We have learned, either by proximity-but-not-accordance, or for the sake of survival, to know America in some ways arguably more than America knows itself. 

Anyways, back to my point, here is the Canadian intel assessment of the Iraq and US claims towards same:

1) In contrast with all other members of the 5E…which dynamic remained true for most subsequent assessments…it rejected US offers for intel briefings on their assessments and themselves assessed that Saddam was most likely to discontinue any WMD programs for economic reasons/relief even before 9-11.

2) While concluding that it was impossible to know for certain that Saddam had destroyed every single WMD it had previously possessed, it thought it extremely probable and assessed that if any in fact remained they would be so insubstantial and degraded due to poor storage conditions as to represent no threat to anyone, to the point of being essentially benign. It also concluded with ‘high confidence’ that Iraq had not restarted any WMD development and therefore possessed no usable WMDs or WMD development program or the resources to build one. 

3) It concluded there was no evidence to support US claims that Saddam was providing chemical weapons to terrorists.

4) It also rejected U.S. claims of evidence of links between Iraq/Saddam and the 9-11 attacks and concluded the probability of same was so low as to be non-existent. 

Here was it’s assessment of US thinking and prediction of future actions re: Iraq:

1) As early as the immediate wake of 9-11, it assessed that the U.S. was adopting a dangerously Manichean worldview and as a result it’s perspective was extremely likely to be critically flawed/biased towards others, warning Canadian government/military to prepare for a U.S. that viewed global affairs through a black and white lens. It even predicted a high likelihood of the U.S. issuing some kind of broad ultimatum as we later saw in ‘with us or against us.’

2) More or less concurrent with the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan, it noted a significant increase in US intel focusing on Iraq and produced an assessment that there was a high probability the US would invade Iraq. It produced a further report soon thereafter predicting how the U.S. would attempt to justify said invasion, stating that it would attempt to establish or fabricate a connection between Iraq and 9-11 and that if that failed it would seek to justify military action on the fictitious grounds that Iraq possessed significant usable WMDs and/or a WMD development program. By mid-2002 it concluded that the 9-11 effort had failed and predicted a full U.S. commitment to the WMD argument. 
 

3) It noted that US intel, specifically the CIA was under intense political pressure to either find evidence of Iraqi WMD programs or develop enough ‘chatter’ to be able to provoke concern that would prove persuasive enough to garner support for military action. It simultaneously heavily criticized US dismissal of on-site UN inspectors and intel and the effort to portray them as disorganized and ineffective, which Canadian intel determined to be patently false. 
 

4) Based on all of the above, the Canadian government refused multiple American requests/pressures/demands to get on board with the invasion, though it should be noted that all of these originated from the WH itself, not the Pentagon or DoD. Eventually the latter (Rumsfeld) agreed to ease the pressure by issuing a statement saying it preferred that Canada concentrate on existing operations in Afghanistan, rather than force Canada to make public it’s specific criticisms and assessments of US conduct, which would have resulted in a highly compromised diplomatic relationship at a crucial juncture. 

5) Canada later concluded that it could justify sending non-combat forces to aid in the reconstruction consistent with it’s established pattern of peacekeeping missions and thereby somewhat alleviate WH anger towards Canada’s refusal to join in the war itself. Later complications arose when field commanders agreed to brief ‘officer and troop exchange’ programs with coalition combat forces in order to ‘season’ those personnel and it has been determined that between 40 and 50 Canadian military personnel participated in combat operations in some capacity, a fact which promoted severe public and political backlash in Canada when it was revealed. 
 

Anyways, I find the Canadian intel and ability to assess US perspective and accurately predict US behaviour well before the fact to be remarkable. Some of this was taken almost word for word from wiki, but I have known about this in pretty high detail for a long time. Hope this is as interesting to others as it is to me. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Anyways, I find the Canadian intel and ability to assess US perspective and accurately predict US behaviour well before the fact to be remarkable. Some of this was taken almost word for word from wiki, but I have known about this in pretty high detail for a long time. Hope this is as interesting to others as it is to me. 

No.  Your bigoted perspective on not only the US government but also its people may be amusingly ironic, but it's not particularly interesting in the slightest.

[James Arryn]

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

No.  Your bigoted perspective on not only the US government but also its people may be amusingly ironic, but it's not particularly interesting in the slightest.

Just lucky then, I guess.

edit: wait, when you say ‘your bigoted’, do you mean me personally or the Canadian intel? I mean, I guess based on that poll I could loosely say the above applies either way, but in terms of being interesting I was talking specifically about Canadian intel…as I specifically stated. I only added that bit about me to try and illustrate how/why I feel Canadians have a pretty good grasp on American attitudes/behaviour. Maybe it would have been better left out? Anyways, re: the intel, you don’t find it’s prescience and precision interesting, really?
 

What’s the phrase? We (America) can criticize ourselves, but god help the outsider who does?

 

edit2: heading back to sleep to catch a few more Zzzs before what is predicted to be a very bumpy transatlantic flight (with 2 year old twins) so I’ll likely miss out on the possible circle-the-wagons pile on to come, but if so, do enjoy yourselves. 
 

last edit: if your bigotry insult was just directed at me personally, can I suggest that we leave that discussion…and arguably the fairly similar global ‘bigotry’ towards the U.S…for another time/discussion, as I’m not sure how productive personal attacks are going to be for this discussion. But if you were in fact referencing the Canadian intelligence community’s ‘bigotry’, that’s definitely fair game and happily what I was specifically calling ‘interesting’, plus I’m also honestly intrigued at your basis for that view. 

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

wait, when you say ‘your bigoted’, do you mean me personally or the Canadian intel? I mean, I guess based on that poll I could loosely say the above applies either way, but in terms of being interesting I was talking specifically about Canadian intel…as I specifically stated. I only added that bit about me to try and illustrate how/why I feel Canadians have a pretty good grasp on American attitudes/behaviour. Maybe it would have been better left out? Anyways, re: the intel, you don’t find it’s prescience and precision interesting, really?

Well, I was primarily referring to your general attitude throughout this thread which has also been reflected for years.  You don't seem to be able to differentiate the behavior of the US government with that of the US electorate (or people), which is pretty much the definition of a bigoted perspective on your part. 

It's also incredibly and laughably ignorant.  Particularly the top of your post I just responded to where you ludicrously contend you and/or the Canadian government could "accurately" anticipate US political behavior - as in the attitudes of US respondents to a poll.  No, you can't, and the suggestion that you can or could on any type of reliable or consistent basis is not only patently absurd as an American, but also as someone who studies political behavior for a living.

If you came at this from, say @Rippounet's perspective I'd still adamantly disagree, but I respect his position because it's focused on the crimes of the US government -- and frankly the "west" at-large, which is indeed manifestly the larger issue those from the left have with the US MIC/NATO and all that entails.  Whereas you consistently seem intent on asserting some superiority over the entire US populace and casting aspersions therein.

[James Arryn]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, I was primarily referring to your general attitude throughout this thread which has also been reflected for years.  You don't seem to be able to differentiate the behavior of the US government with that of the US electorate (or people), which is pretty much the definition of a bigoted perspective on your part. 

It's also incredibly and laughably ignorant.  Particularly the top of your post I just responded to where you ludicrously contend you and/or the Canadian government could "accurately" anticipate US political behavior - as in the attitudes of US respondents to a poll.  No, you can't, and the suggestion that you can or could on any type of reliable or consistent basis is not only patently absurd as an American, but also as someone who studies political behavior for a living.

If you came at this from, say @Rippounet's perspective I'd still adamantly disagree, but I respect his position because it's focused on the crimes of the US government -- and frankly the "west" at-large, which is indeed manifestly the larger issue those from the left have with the US MIC/NATO and all that entails.  Whereas you consistently seem intent on asserting some superiority over the entire US populace and casting aspersions therein.

Just caught this. First, see my edits, second, you misunderstood or I miscommunicated about ‘understanding polls’, I was specifically referencing this quiz which is an attempt to explore how each side in US politics fails to understand the other: 

https://perceptiongap.us

…and my results. It was not me saying I can predict us polling or anything like it, just that, at least according to this device, I have a pretty spot-on ability to predict how each side thinks the other thinks and (to me) the intersting part was that I was significantly better able to predict what answers Republicans would assume Democrats would give…ie better view of the forest the farther I was from the trees, which I thought might be the large writ small.
 

That was the reason for it’s inclusion, but I’m kinda regretting it now…if for no other reason than it gave you a pretext for ignoring the fact that my hope of interest was, as stated, specifically about the intel…was pretty much a throwaway illustration. Anyways, beyond your other insults, mischaracterizations and assumptions that only you work in related fields, again see my edits but I am interested in how/why you feel Canadian intel is even somewhat bigoted towards the US and why you don’t find their amazingly bang-on assessments interesting or indicative of anything. 
 

See you on the other side. Hopefully not metaphysically, flying around hurricanes with toddlers has me a bit anxious. 

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

First, see my edits

I saw your edits.  Indeed, what I quoted from you literally was your first and primary edit.  Your second one said you were going to bed, so didn't feel the need to respond to that.

I'm aware of the quiz you were referencing.  If you don't realize why it's patently ludicrous to act like your results from that quiz somehow make you and/or the Canadian government more sage in your understanding of US electoral behavior, I really can't help you.  Because, again, it amusingly and ironically reflects your own ignorance.

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Canada refused to take part in the invasion and/or declare war, only sending peace-keeping non-combat troops to help with the reconstruction...

James Arryn -- the US didn't declare war, either

Canadia is certainly seen in a better light than the US; often, old Hollywood would portray US tourists, visiting and getting into trouble overseas, as claiming to be Canadians to avoid trouble (hahaha). Other than that one mob of tweens who attacked me and called me a Paki, or the one time I was almost compelled by my friends to get a cellblock style tattoo before being allowed to join their bmx biker gang, I have only good memories of the country.

Nevertheless, Canadia still carries a degree of responsibility -- somewhere between Iceland and the US. In my view, the Prime Minister's moral support (e.g., Napoleon's, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one") alone is decisive. Moreover, the non-combat forces supported US efforts toward nation-building (including training Iraqi police and army forces, facilitating their associated combat actions, which involved siginificant bloodshed), which is imperialistic. No argument, though; if you consider Canadia's actions in Iraq purely innocent, I'll accept that.

[James Arryn]

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

I saw your edits.  Indeed, what I quoted from you literally was your first and primary edit.  Your second one said you were going to bed, so didn't feel the need to respond to that.

I'm aware of the quiz you were referencing.  If you don't realize why it's patently ludicrous to act like your results from that quiz somehow make you and/or the Canadian government more sage in your understanding of US electoral behavior, I really can't help you.  Because, again, it amusingly and ironically reflects your own ignorance.

I appreciate the consideration re: sleep, but either hurricanes or this discussion have made sleep elusive…entirely my fault either way…and now I’m about to finish packing, but for the longer, later discussion, again see more edits…annoying habit, I know. 
 

But quickly, though I did study poli-sci, I mainly concentrated on history and i.r., Munk et al, so I’m appealing to authority re: my ignorance. In your experience, do residents of a country or region typically have a more objective/less biased view of that country/region’s behaviour towards others than outsiders? Like would, say, Americans or Russians typically have a less biased view of American/Russian foreign policy initiatives than people from neutral countries?

My paltry understanding seems to indicate somewhat the reverse, but as we’ve established, I’m a raving bigot whom thinks things like ‘polls showing the overwhelming majority of Americans blamed the Kent state victims for their deaths’ or ‘polls showing a majority of Americans thought civil rights protests did more harm than good for the civil rights movement’ say significant things about American views at the time and conflict in interesting ways with how Americans remember these events now, so my lunacy established, can you give me the benefit of your expertise on the question of proximity and objectivity?

[James Arryn]

27 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

James Arryn -- the US didn't declare war, either

Canadia is certainly seen in a better light than the US; often, old Hollywood would portray US tourists, visiting and getting into trouble overseas, as claiming to be Canadians to avoid trouble (hahaha). Other than that one mob of tweens who attacked me and called me a Paki, or the one time I was almost compelled by my friends to get a cellblock style tattoo before being allowed to join their bmx biker gang, I have only good memories of the country.

Nevertheless, Canadia still carries a degree of responsibility -- somewhere between Iceland and the US. In my view, the Prime Minister's moral support (e.g., Napoleon's, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one") alone is decisive. Moreover, the non-combat forces supported US efforts toward nation-building (including training Iraqi police and army forces, facilitating their associated combat actions, which involved siginificant bloodshed), which is imperialistic. No argument, though; if you consider Canadia's actions in Iraq purely innocent, I'll accept that.

Purely innocent would conflict with the last part of my post, I think. But establishing Canada’s virtue wasn’t really the main thrust, though I was definitely implying relative ~ innocence. But to me the interesting bit was how bang on Canadian intel of the situation was, particularly with respect to accurately predicting, step-by-step, American views and actions well before the fact, and how and why they were able to do so. Of particular note was their being alone of the 5E to take a pass on receiving the US intel findings, yet still being able to predict what those findings would be, and how they would be utilized.

 

edit: as to the U.S. declaring war, that’s a bit more ambiguous. Bush often mentioned Iraq when discussing the declared war on terror, and called the invasion an ‘attack of opportunity’. It’s ~ grey, and certainly much closer to any formal declaration since WWII, since which time I agree it’s pretty much a long list of undeclared wars.

[Wade1865]

16 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Purely innocent would conflict with the last part of my post, I think. But establishing Canada’s virtue wasn’t really the main thrust, though I was definitely implying relative ~ innocence. But to me the interesting bit was how bang on Canadian intel of the situation was, particularly with respect to accurately predicting, step-by-step, American views and actions well before the fact, and how and why they were able to do so. Of particular note was their being alone of the 5E to take a pass on receiving the US intel findings, yet still were able to predict what they would be. 

James Arryn -- those seasoning actions were as close to innocence as a party could legitimately claim (besides Iceland). Again, you could claim innocence, and I wouldn't disagree; upon reflection, I suppose my outlook is desensitized, but it was so before the wars, as well.

I was going to comment on the intel prediction you highlighted (which was interesting to me), but my perspective is probably too controversial. I'll say it now: the USG didn't give a damn about the WMD, it was just a convenient (and perceived to have been easily proven) casus belli. They should have picked another justification, because none would have mattered.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

In your experience, do residents of a country or region typically have a more objective/less biased view of that country/region’s behaviour towards others than outsiders? Like would, say, Americans or Russians typically have a less biased view of American/Russian foreign policy initiatives than people from neutral countries?

No, I think your consistent depiction of the American public and frankly the entire existence of this thread which apparently was created because you couldn't stop re-litigating a twenty year old war in the Ukraine threads demonstrates your own prejudice against a people based on their membership/citizenship in a group.  That is the definition of bigotry.

Look, I get shitting on the US government due to the MIC and Dubya and Iraq, and its abject and hypocritical projection of "western" values, and its actions during the Cold War, and certainly before that too (although mostly it's the domestic problems there).  But what I don't accept - ever - is extrapolating that to the widespread citizenry or electorate that populates any state.

This is a frequent but manifest double standard on this board.  You're not the only one - to be sure - but again by all appearances you're the one that started this recent flair up.  If I acted with such arrogance and shat on the Canadian people or electorate the way you have in this thread vis-a-vis the American public, do you really think you'd just sit there and take it?  The same goes for many British posters, or any posters around the world.

I'm fine with shitting on the "dumb American electorate" to an extent.  And in some ways it's true, of course, but anyone telling me Americans are significantly more stupid or jingoistic or even racist than your average demographic analogue in any other country has an INCREDIBLY naive perspective of both basic human nature and recent political history.  You're right though, I probably do give more latitude to those that actually live in the US -- because we're the ones that actually have to deal with it.  But, still, eventually it gets tiring to keep on reading such horseshit.

[Wade1865]

19 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Purely innocent would conflict with the last part of my post, I think.

James Arryn -- that's good to know, by the way. Our countries are intertwined and will be more so sometime this decade, somewhere in the Pacific. We're going to need those (less than innocent) seasoned Soldiers

[James Arryn]

13 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

James Arryn -- those seasoning actions are as close to innocence as a party could ligitimately claim (besides Iceland). Again, you could claim pure innocence, and I wouldn't diagree; upon reflection, I suppose my outlook is desensitized, but it was so before the wars, as well.

I was going to comment on the intel prediction you highlighted (which was interesting to me), but my perspective is probably too controversial. I'll say it now: the USG didn't give a damn about the WMD, it was just a convenient (**and perceived to have been easily proven**) casus belli. They should have picked another justification, because none would have mattered.

**: actually I disagree here, as the U.S. intel departments were actually pushing back on the WH claims of WMDs so much that the WH created it’s own new internal intel department to give them the answers it sought. But the published NIE report specifically stated that:

Saddam had no known WMDs, might be interested in trying to acquire them but the probability of success was very low. And moreover, that even if he got them Saddam was almost certainly not a threat to use WMDs against the U.S. or it’s allies, directly or indirectly (citing extremely hostile relations between secular Iraq and groups like AQ). The only scenario they thought remotely possible for Saddam to use any WMDs was in the event of an overwhelming US invasion of Iraq.

[Wade1865]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

**: actually I disagree here, as the U.S. intel departments were actually pushing back on the WH claims of WMDs so much that the WH created it’s own new internal intel department to give them the answers it sought. But the published NIE report specifically stated that:

Saddam had no known WMDs, might be interested in trying to acquire them but the probability was very low. And moreover, that even if he got them Saddam was almost certainly not a threat to use WMDs against the U.S. or it’s allies, directly or indirectly (citing extremely hostile relations between secular Iraq and groups like AQ). The only scenario they thought remotely possible for Saddam to use any WMDs was in the event of an overwhelming US invasion of Iraq.

James Arryn -- I'm confident the USG anticipated finding some evidence of hidden WMD stockpiles despite the probability against it, especially since it was a stated justification. It was genuinely anticipated that US combat power would find them. Ultimately, not finding them proved to be a political disaster.

WMD. The fifth President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was internationally condemned for his use of chemical weapons during the 1980s campaign against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War.

[Wade1865]

48 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

...edit: as to the U.S. declaring war, that’s a bit more ambiguous. Bush often mentioned Iraq when discussing the declared war on terror, and called the invasion an ‘attack of opportunity’. It’s ~ grey, and certainly much closer to any formal declaration since WWII, since which time I agree it’s pretty much a long list of undeclared wars.

James Arryn -- yes, of course; I was being faceitious, hahaha! I was just teasing your claim that Canadia didn't declare war. Of course it was war -- the definition of it, regardless of offical or legal proclamations -- which included your country and mine.

Warmonger

[James Arryn]

16 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

James Arryn -- I'm confident the USG anticipated finding some evidence of hidden WMD stockpiles despite the probability against it, especially since it was a stated justification. It was genuinely anticipated that US combat power would find them. Ultimately, not finding them proved to be a political disaster.

WMD. The fifth President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was internationally condemned for his use of chemical weapons during the 1980s campaign against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War.

WMD. UN resolutions against the fifth President of Iraq for the use of chemical weapons against Iranian and Kurdish civilians were vetoed by the United States as Saddam was an ally and with respect to Iran was operating with the full sanction and economic and military support of the United States. As for the Kurds, in addition to protecting. Saddam in the UN, the official US position was that the chemical attack on the Kurds was done by Iran. Later as it became completely undeniable, they grudgingly withdrew that claim. 

[Wade1865]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

WMD. UN resolutions against the fifth President of Iraq for the use of chemical weapons against Iranian and Kurdish civilians were vetoed by the United States as Saddam was an ally and with respect to Iran was operating with the full sanction and economic and military support of the United States. As for the Kurds, in addition to protecting. Saddam in the UN, their official position was that the chemical attack on the Kurds was done by Iran. 

James Arryn -- vetoed; yes, because it was in US interests at the time to support an ally regardless of truth, which wasn't the case in 2003. Remember, the US is the world's apex political player, which should be obvious given your (correct) viewpoint that the US is hypocritical in Her interests. Thus, it was still anticipated that WMD stockpiles existed; otherwise the USG wouldn't have taken the risk.

WMD. Iraq actively researched and later employed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from 1962 to 1991, when it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile and halted its biological and nuclear weapon programs as required by the United Nations Security Council.

[James Arryn]

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, I think your consistent depiction of the American public and frankly the entire existence of this thread which apparently was created because you couldn't stop re-litigating a twenty year old war in the Ukraine threads demonstrates your own prejudice against a people based on their membership/citizenship in a group.  That is the definition of bigotry.

Look, I get shitting on the US government due to the MIC and Dubya and Iraq, and its abject and hypocritical projection of "western" values, and its actions during the Cold War, and certainly before that too (although mostly it's the domestic problems there).  But what I don't accept - ever - is extrapolating that to the widespread citizenry or electorate that populates any state.

This is a frequent but manifest double standard on this board.  You're not the only one - to be sure - but again by all appearances you're the one that started this recent flair up.  If I acted with such arrogance and shat on the Canadian people or electorate the way you have in this thread vis-a-vis the American public, do you really think you'd just sit there and take it?  The same goes for many British posters, or any posters around the world.

I'm fine with shitting on the "dumb American electorate" to an extent.  And in some ways it's true, of course, but anyone telling me Americans are significantly more stupid or jingoistic or even racist than your average demographic analogue in any other country has an INCREDIBLY naive perspective of both basic human nature and recent political history.  You're right though, I probably do give more latitude to those that actually live in the US -- because we're the ones that actually have to deal with it.  But, still, eventually it gets tiring to keep on reading such horseshit.

Short answer for now: I ‘shit’ on the American electorate for consistently supporting an unending series of wars (and the military spending that makes it possible/inevitable) until they become costly occupations. You want to act like the wars themselves are somehow completely disconnected from the electorate, or like ‘aside from that Mrs. Lincoln…’

But if you want to shit on Canadians for our unending wars of aggression and popular support for same, I’m here for it. (r hopefully will be if a hurricane doesn’t get us) There are 2 wars Canada entered before America…WWS I and II, where especially in the latter we stood by our alliances as opposed to waiting for Japan/Germany to declare war on us. So maybe you could make something out of Canadian ambivalence towards killing foreigners there…and tbh, in WWI, Canadian troops DID commit atrocities so there’s somewhere to start.

In terms of the people, aside from guns, racism and the weird phobia about socialism/pursuit of money, you are among my favourites. Especially the Americans I meet travelling…backpacking, not the hotel staying kind…amazing friendships. And Americans constitute a huge chunk of my favourite well, almost anything. You keep talking like my holding Americans to task for their support of horrible actions as a prejudice. I would say one of us is definitely demonstrating bias there. I wholeheartedly agree that I am VERY critical of US foreign policy/history, but I think you’ll find most non-Americans largely agree with me.

More later, but anyways, do you think global opinion of US foreign policy/actions is closer to yours or mine. Do you think the world views Canada or America more favourably, and why? We get really get into rubrics and history and racism and governments and diversity and the rest when we resume this, believe me I’m interested. 
 

Here are some starting points;

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-racial-equality

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-racially-diverse-countries

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/best-countries-in-the-world.html
 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-peaceful-countries

And, again, this one the last (for now fingers crossed) see you back in America.