I believe this is partly wrong. It should have been “technology from the Americans”. I have also heard the term “know how” used, as in problem solving skills.
And I’m pretty sure this was coined back in the day when America was undisputably the world’s leader in high tech.
I apologize for interrupting the joke thread. However, Bush and Obama do share many characteristics. Any two Presidents do, really, since you have to pass certain litmus tests to come into power in either party. But I wouldn’t be wasting much time on whether he knows Canada has a President or a Prime Minister. I’d be worried about more important issues. For example, killing.
The most dangerous quality I see in Obama is his silver tongue. He is a skillful orator and his body language is seductive, able to draw even television watchers in. And it’s very easy to fall into a haze when listening to one of his grand speeches. But have you ever actually, you know, paid attention to them?
American exceptionalism? Check.
America has a responsibility in solving the world’s problems? Check.
America has an enduring role to play in the Middle East? Check.
America is a shining city on the hill who can reach out to help the poor and oppressed? Check.
Wants to increase the size of the military? Check.
Wants to leave an enclave of U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future? Check.
Believes America is the “last, best hope” for THE FUCKING EARTH? Check.
Now, I’m not begrudging him. Our imperialists will do as they will. I’m just sad to see so many anti-war liberals becoming enamored with his candy coated, flowery rhetoric. I’m not saying he’ll be any worse than, say, Mrs. Clinton, but I’d be weary. Given the circumstances of the world, I doubt he’ll sink any further than “cruise missile liberalism,” or running a couple “humanitarian missions” in Africa, but why take the chance?
A Governor General. Presently a female black refugee from Haiti. Previously a female oriental refugee from Hong Kong. The GG’s job is to represent the head of state, who is a female caucasian aristocrat from England.
Plausible
When I heard it it was like squeaking chalk on a blackboard. Had he said "the presidents of Mexico and Canada " I might have overlooked it. Can you possibly mispeak and refer to Britain’s Gordon Brown as the president of Great Britain?
I doubt it.
Bullshit. here’s what I said
Here’s what Obama said from post #69
I apparently understood his comment as well as the media and Dopers who failed to challenge me on this point for 67 relies. I don’t know how you can take out the terrorist targets in Pakistan without crossing the border. Can you explain that to me.
Well you obviously don’t understand hyperbole.
If you think my comments in this thread is based on nationalism you’ve missed the whole point of my OP. I guarantee you that you are way more nationalistic than I am. I’ve posted before that it wouldn’t mind at all if Canada became part of the US so that I could have a say in the leadership of the free world.
Now I have one more point to make regarding the importance of Canada (As well as Britain and The Netherlands )(neither has a president) to US foreign policy. We are losing the war in Afghanistan. The only countries fighting without caveats are the US, Britain, Canada, The Netherlands and Estonia. These US allies are facing serious opposition at home because the rest of Nato is not pulling weight. The US, the most important country to Nato, is the only country that can coerce the other countries to participate more fully and share the burden to win this war and turn around the presently inevitable scenario of fighting this war alone and losing the goal.
Canada right now is bearing the brunt of this war. On a per capita basis we have more fatalities than the US or any other ally. I would think that losing the war in Afghanistan by losing allies an important foreign policy issue though not popular in the US media bears some knowledge and understanding of the Canada. I don’t know if the other presidential candidates are aware of the fragility of this war effort and following the politics in Canada, but I have reason to be wary of Obama in this regard.
References:
http://icasualties.org/oef/
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-11/2007-11-16-voa61.cfm?CFID=242031477&CFTOKEN=84756007
One may suppose an airstrike is an act of war, but it is not an invasion. Also, would you consider a strike similar to the one the the Israelis launched against Entebbe in Uganda an “invasion”?
Look, I get your point. Sure, when I first heard Obama’s remark, the US violating Pakistani sovereignty and territory suggested invasion to me. And besides, why do we need the term "ground invasion’ with ground troups being the accepted requirement for the use of the word ‘invasion’. One of the simple dictionary definitions for “invasion” would allow the use of the term for air strikes, but like I said, I get your point.
However, If you think Obama’s threat can be carried out successfully with airstrikes alone , you need to give me an historical example where hostile enemy action alone was successfully dealt with requiring no ground forces. Any hostile border action that does not have a positive result is futile and if Obama is serious about his threat, he’ll have to commit ground forces inside Pakistan.
Libya.
Also, you didn’t answer the Israeli question. Would you consider a commando raid an invasion?
And I forgot to mention another possibility with Pakisan – a strike, air or ground, with the permission of the Pakistani government. Not out of the question.
Well, if you measure success by how an operation raises the spirits of Americans, well whatever floats your boat. Obama is good at making Americans feel good.
Other than that, what was the strategic accomplishment? The fact is there were negative repercussions. Libya stepped up arms shipments to terrorists, hijacked PanAm Flight 73 and destroyed PanAm Flight 103 in retaliation.
Yes, theoretically by definition, but not by popular usage of the term.
If you think any pakistani president would consent to that, I have a bridge in Vancouver to sell you.
That’s why we need a corrupt Prez like Musharraf in power. With the appropriate threats against his nest egg (ie, the aid he skims from) he could be swayed to okay it. He’s already okayed the use of his country as a staging area for the Afghan war, it’s not that big a leap.
>The show often lampoons American ignorance of Canadian culture and politics.
Sorry to be unsympathetic, but how would it look if an American program lampooned Canadian ignorance of American culture and politics?
Like others have pointed out, there is an imbalance in the interest these two countries are likely to pay to one another. The economy and the population of the United States are about an order of magnitude larger than that of Canada.
If the shoe was on the other foot, nobody would be surprised if Americans knew a lot about some new country that appeared against one of our borders with a population of 3 billion and a GDP of 130 trillion dollars.
We should be worried about Americans electing stupid and incurious leaders. Obviously. Oh, so obviously. But Obama’s use of “president” in that spoken line is pretty weak evidence on this question, isn’t it?
Good scrutiny of Obama’s level of understanding and experience would be very useful right about now, but I have to say this doesn’t seem to be it.