|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-17 01:47:04
While I try to refrain from 'wide brushes' to paint peoples of particular nations, I think that the USA as a whole is not worth emulating. The values and culture that they exhibit through the entertainment, media and violent message they exhort cannot be the pinnacle of cultural advancement. Yet the USA feels that it has the inherent right to propogate, by violent means if needed, the cultural anomolies that it feels to be the 'most valuable' thing on earth.
I disagree with sports stars and movie stars making outrageous sums in a 'cult of personality' economic system. No wonder Canada has a problem keeping doctors in out country. If the doctors in Canada moved to Hollywood they could earn a thousandfold more by pretending to be a doctor. The value system in the US is based on greed and selfishness. Very few countries or individuals wish to have this as the prime reason for existence.
It seems that the US is making a push to have their own system pushed on the rest of the world while backing it up with overt threats af military dominance. Everywhere. The threat of the US causing WWIII is now looming larger than ever before.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-17 20:41:39
In response, I find that democracy values are the most close to our own.
We should at the end of the day be supporting them.
The alternative is brutal régimes such as North Korea, and I hope you can't possibly want to emulate that country.
Peace...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-17 22:21:51
The jist of my message may have seemed strictly anti-US, but the point is there are many alternatives other than becoming a 'brutal regime' available to Canada. It is in the interests of most of the globe that Canada choose options relecting our commitment to the future longevity of everyone on the planet. The US, and also the 'brutal regimes' exhibit the behaviour that 'Only I matter' and act accordingly.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-18 02:40:00
Perhaps America is even more "democratic" than Canada. When was the last time you voted to elect a senator?
A likeness to the United States? Maybe not...the Canadian founders (at the Quebec Conference of 1864) agreed to model our legislatures along the lines of Westminster, in Great Britain...looking to adapt the system for use in Canada.
As for "brutal regimes such as North Korea" being the only alternative to representative democracy- Margaret Thatcher had an acronym for it: TINA (or, There Is No Alternative)...which is obviously ideological claptrap, no matter who is saying it or how it is said. There are plenty of political alternatives available...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-18 11:28:42
kn_aeshap, I am a bit unclear on a point, you are you making.
Are you saying there are plenty of more acceptable alternatives for democracy? If so what do you have in mind?
Just curious...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-18 15:57:43
I had 2 main points: the first being that our practice of "democracy" is probably closer to that of England (as opposed to America), considering that we attempted to adapt their working system for use in Canada.
The second was that yes, there are plenty of political alternatives (direct democracy, oligarchy, anarchism, socialism, communism) to representative democracy (which is what we are currently practicing in Canada). Whether or not these political systems are acceptable, should be up to the user.
If you are truly unaware of the alternatives, well...you really shouldn't be. Do some research on the history of political theory and practice- that might help a bit.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-18 23:36:21
---------<Smile> Yes, I realize alternative political structures such as communism, socialism, so forth. I am just going to quote you here just to keep our thoughts clear, don’t take it as being rude or anything like that, that is not my intentions at all.
Quote;
As for "brutal regimes such as North Korea" being the only alternative to representative democracy- Margaret Thatcher had an acronym for it: TINA (or, There Is No Alternative)...which is obviously ideological claptrap, no matter who is saying it or how it is said. There are plenty of political alternatives available...
End quote;
--------- Here you are saying that there are alternatives to democracy such as anarchism, socialism, and communism. Correct? In practical terms are you honestly advocating these as better practical alternatives in Canada then our current democracy? Or are you just having a “scholastic idea”?
Quote;
The second was that yes, there are plenty of political alternatives (direct democracy, oligarchy, anarchism, socialism, communism) to representative democracy (which is what we are currently practicing in Canada). Whether or not these political systems are acceptable, should be up to the user.
End quote;
--------- So if you had a choice what would you prefer? Which country past or present comes closest to your Ideal? Why?
Thanks;
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-19 01:47:09
I was saying both, actually...that there are many political theories and practices (the two tend to be quite different) available- and yes, for use in Canada. The fact that they exist is proof of the possibility of their practical use.
Whether or not their practical use is acceptable to all of the people involved, is another question...
As well, I don't necessarily consider any of the systems/theories I listed to be 'better' practical alternatives to the representative democracy currently in use in Canada. I have no choice in the matter really, I cannot know whether they are better- because none of the political alternatives I listed have been put to use in this country...what I think of them in practice would be nothing more than a scholastic idea ;)
As to which country, past or present, comes closest to my ideal- I'd have to say none. In fact, I don't believe there should be an 'ideal' at all. If I really did have a choice, I would not have a preference...I can say that much for sure.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-19 13:36:42
Ok, so your preference would succeed to your choice, fair enough.
I have to admit you are somewhat non-committal. Is it due because we are speaking in a government sanctioned public forum?
Or is because you feel we should not be committed to a single form of government, that is democratic government should ebb and flow to fit the current situations. We as voters should not lock in stone our ideologies or perhaps we should not have ideologies at all?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-19 21:18:32
I don't consider myself to be non-committal...not at all actually.
Not wanting to be locked down to a particular system/theory/ideology seems much more natural to me- the "want" to be governed and the "want" to be led and controlled by anything is indeed a strange one, in my mind at least.
Personally, I think the fact that we are using a public forum -provided by the Canadian government- doesn't even enter into the situation. Or at least it shouldn't. And if I was afraid to speak my mind in this forum, or felt that I had to curtail my opinions so that they suited this...well, that would be unacceptable, to say the least. That's probably why I find the idea of a "moderator" to be quite odd.
People should not have to be committed to a single form of government- under no circumstance should an individual ever be forced to choose a system that puts restraints around the possibility for change. Unfortunately, our representative democracy does just that.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-17 20:59:06
I was wondering whether or not the US would support a UN mandate regarding invading Iraq, if needed, but excluding US troops. If the US truly has no self-interest in occupying Iraq, then they should have no objections to the rest of UN and NATO allies sending their troops instead of the US.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-17 22:55:05
Hate to break it to you, but the UN is nothing without the US in a military sense, neither is NATO. The US is the reason why they are able to enforce int'l law with the threat of force. A big reason why the League of Nations failed is because the US was not apart of it. It would be a much bloodier, longer war if the US was not involved, and everyone would suffer more.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-18 20:01:56
The US is presently the biggest military force in the world, to be sure. But that does not mean that the UN is nothing without them. The US is abiding, for now, the wishes and legitimacy of the UN. The US has in the past breached international law and ignored the UN. They seem horrified that Iraq could do the same.
There is plenty of military capability amongst the UN member nations to 'disarm' Iraq. Possibly even to 'disarm' the US. The league of nations did suffer for the lack of US involvement, partly though, because of US isolationism. To them nothing else in the world matters but their own interests. It is the dogma of the US from the white house to the individual.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-18 23:26:34
Iraq poses a threat to the region and the world's security, the US does not. The US has not tried to invade either of its neighbours in a very, very long time, can the same be said about Iraq? Canada is rich in natural resources, including oil. The US isn't horrified just because Iraq violated UN law, they are horrified because of the seriousness of the violation broken, ie WMDs. This dictator has proven he will use them. This, along with the fact that thousands of liters of chemical and biological agents can't be accounted for don't worry you at all? If not, then you are far braver than I.
Secondly, only their own interests matter? Who gives the most in foreign aid? I don't see Saudi Arabia giving billions in aid, do you? It is true that every government looks after their own people/interests first, but this is nothing new.
As for the UN. The largest two UN conflicts in the 20th century were Korea and the Gulf War. Who supplied the majority of military assistance, and whose presence would both have been lost without? Granted, the UN may not be nothing without the US, but it would not even be a fraction of what it is today without them. I believe in earnest that a lot of the effectiveness of the UN comes from its threat of force, and that threat would be far less of a deterrent without old Uncle Sam in the mix.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rb
Date: 2003-02-19 16:49:59
Waterloo states: "Iraq poses a threat to the region and the world's security, the US does not. The US has not tried to invade either of its neighbours in a very, very long time, can the same be said about Iraq?"
Unfortunately the US quite obviously poses as threat to the world's security otherwise we would not be having this discussion. The United States (with support from Canada at various levels) has an extremely long history of foreign intervention and aggression. If you want regional examples you have Panama in the 80s, Cuba via the Bay of Pigs back in the 60s, Nicaragua via the Contra proxy army in the 80s and 90s, the installation of Pinochet via CIA training and support, etc. The full number of acts of foreign aggression by the US is in the hundreds. As we speak there are a hundred thousand troops in the Middle East who are already performing actions within Iraq despite no UN mandate, a large number in the Philipines plus the forces still in Afghanistan (which is nowhere near over contrary to the image portrayed in US media about this being a quick clean and decisive war).
Trying to portray the US as a benevolant entity in world politics is simply unfounded by their past and present behaviour.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-19 19:45:16
Wrong, rb, if Iraq weren't a threat to world security we wouldn't be having this conversation. As for US intervention, let me first say that since they are the lone superpower, they have a moral obligation to step in when needed eg first Gulf War. They are criticized when they do intervene, but you must remember that they are also criticized when they don't.
Panama they invaded only for a brief time to capture a drug lord who the Panamese gov't would do nothing to stop, or at least couldn't. I think his name was Noreaga, but I could be wrong. Anyway it's not like they invaded and occupied for a long period of time.
As for Cuba, the USSR was only stationing nukes there, I guess that's no reason eh? Sheesh. A better option would have been to let the nukes stay in striking distance? Come on, think reasonably.
As for the Mid-East, I assume you mean Kuwait. The same Kuwait that the US helped save, the same Kuwaitis who welcome US troops there (majority anyway).
And the Phillipines, the government requested US assistance in dealing with the Abu Sayef rebels. The Phillipino head of State is a strong Bush supporter. They are not there against the government's will.
Afghanistan, you are incorrect again. The war is over. There will always be anti-American sentiment there, but stability takes a long time to achieve. No one in the White House said that Afghanistan would be prosperous and stable within a year or two, you are making assumptions. Perhaps you missed it, but the Taliban and much of Al Qaeda were neutralized within weeks. This rapid defeat is unprecedented in warfare.
You confuse military presence with acts of foreign aggression, and this is precisely the problem with the majoriy of the anti-US enthusiasts. The US is not perfect, but with all respect, you give some pretty lousy examples.
Lastly, it is impossible to be seen as benevolent when the whole world envies and hates you. I have my problems with the US too, but their foreign policy is certainly not one of them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-19 20:07:37
US foriegn policy is at the root of all of the protests, the international hatred of the US, deplorable working conditions of the third world, ...the list is too long to mention. If people think that the invasion of Panama was to capture a 'drug lord' then they have fallen hook, line and sinker for US propaganda. Manuel Noriega was only one of a long list of 'brutal dictators' directly funded and supported by the US. They invaded Panama to retain control of the Canal Zone after Jimmy Carter signed a treaty to give it to the Panamanians in 1999. That is why so many people hate them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-19 21:04:00
I guess I should clarify, the rest of the world does not hate the US because of it's actions in Panama. It is beacause they support brutal dictators when it is in their own interests to do so, and they oust dictators when it is in their own interests to do so.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-19 21:34:38
After re-reading this post, and noting the glaring examples of pure ignorance of the world at large, such as your reference to the 'Panamese', I can only conclude that you are G.W. Bush himself. J/K.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-20 14:36:05
my most sincere apologies for misnaming a group of people. I guess that completely discredits the argument, since it was such a crucial part to it. Perhaps I should start pointing out type-os and the like?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: facilitator
Date: 2003-02-20 14:53:14
While we encourage you to engage each other's ideas, please keep in mind that there is limited value to directly insulting other individual participants. The tone evident in the above posts borders on being both off-topic and uncivil. The moderators do not wish to reject posts but will consider doing so should this escalate much further.
Please do read the civil rules which can be linked to from many places in this site for clarification and do keep in mind, that this is intended to be a productive and focused discussion and an online space where people feel comfortable expressing their views and where criticism focuses on the issues discussed rather than on insulting the individual participants.
Your comments and enthusiasm are welcomed and appreciated.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-18 00:33:24
As a Canadian I can't speak for the U.S. government, but I would venture to say from discussions from within the U.S., as I understand them; only the U.S. has the military power to effectively & efficiently remove Saddam from power.
Otherwise we (NATO, U.N.) would have to flatten Iraq because those organizations are geared toward fighting laying waste to the old Soviet Union.
No one wants to flatten Iraq, not even the U.S. & Britain.
I am creating a post under security titled;
---Understanding the obsolete U.N. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) mandate; ---
I hope you have a moment in the next week to give me your thoughts on it.
Thanks.
Steve
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-20 01:22:48
Fleabag, you raise a good point. In some ways I actually do agree with you. "USA not OK".
The USA is not OK in many ways. I also have a distaste for their popular culture. It gives me a very bad headache just thinking about it. However, I think many Americans also have the same gripes. I also do not like the business culture of many of their largest corporations and the way they influence US government policies, whether they be expressed or hidden. Personally, I would rather live in Canada. However, I still agree with Bush and the US on the need to disarm Iraq.
As a democracy and a land of freedom and opportunity, I would also suggest the US does go beyond what even Canada offers. It is off-topic but I would say the US has a greater tradition of democracy because it allows all of its people freedom to succeed or fail spectacularly and it does so by explicitly embracing every one of its citizens as an equal. Not even Canada can claim that - IMO our own democracy is a qualified one. In the same vein, I would also venture to intuitively agree with "kn aeshap" that a democracy is not necessarily the only viable alternative to brutal regimes. As it's only an intuition. I haven't thought it through or researched it but I suspect it may have a lot to do with the "mindspace" of a country's people and the challenges facing a people. To illustrate with a limited example: for instance, when an effective country is at a state of war, democracy for practical purposes, would no longer exist.
Anyway, to come back and address your contention that "the US is making a push to have their own system pushed in the rest of the world...", I believe that contention is invalid.
If one were to take that sort ot view then anyone who agrees/disagrees with someone else on one issue would have to agree/disagree with them on all issues. Come to think of it - this is what Schröder claimed he was trying to avoid when he disagreed with Bush. However I suspect his personal annoyance with Bush and his fear of losing his elections had more to do with his decision - anyhow, that's also off-topic. My point is that you took a huge leap of presumption when you claim that agreeing with Bush on Iraq and Al Qaeda is tantamount to assuming US cultural mores, business practices, government policies...etc.
No, it is counterproductive to your personal interests as well as mine and Canada's as a sovereign nation to disagree with another country simply because we might feel we have an identity crisis of our own. IMO, the reason why someone worries about having an identity is because they are self-conscious. Making choices so as not to appear like someone else is the epitome of someone who really has an identity problem. We might also consider whether this partly accounted for how Chirac handled the Iraq issue over the last few months.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-21 16:53:29
Vox
"No, it is counterproductive to your personal interests as well as mine and Canada's as a sovereign nation to disagree with another country simply because we might feel we have an identity crisis of our own. IMO, the reason why someone worries about having an identity is because they are self-conscious".
Thank-you!!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-21 22:21:56
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.20.03/iraq-0308.html includes the following:
"According to newly declassified documents mentioned in the Washington Post Weekly Edition (Jan. 6-12, 2003), Iraq was already using chemical weapons on an "almost daily basis" when Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1983, consolidating the U.S.-Iraq military alliance."
The rest is also worth reading.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-22 16:29:07
banquosghost
I've read many of your postings and have a good sense of where your coming from, but could you provide further clarification on what your trying to get at here?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-22 19:48:02
I ought to have supplied a little more information with that link. Sorry. Late and tired when I did it.
I had, I don't remember where now, mentioned the 800 pages that the US had redacted from Iraq's initial report to the UN. Der Spiegel, in Germany, has reported on what they say is a version that was forwarded to them from New York. The link is to an article in a Silicon Valley newspaper about those pages and the US (and other including British) firms that have been doing business with Iraq all along, selling Saddam various things which could be components of various banned weapons. *These* were the pages the Bush administration felt had to be removed from Iraq's declaration.
Why?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-23 16:03:54
Yes, I was already aware of this. For the reasons well articulated by Vox, everyone was supplying arms to Iraq, with France being the second biggest supplier next to the Russians. Absent from the list of French sales on the link you provided were Super Entarde fighter bombers, exocet missles, and the technology and materials to build the nuclear reactor which the Israelis bombed. Mistakes were certainly made. As I'm sure you are aware, the Russians are providing Iran with a nuclear reactor as we speak, and with the apparent blessing of the UN. Why? Iran is rich in oil and gas, and can generate electricity with these sources much more cheaply than it can with nuclear technology. Have the Ayatollah and council of clerics become suddenly concerned about greenhouse gas emissions? Then there is Canada's role in providing India with Candu nuclear reactors in the 70s. The most simplistic analysis of the situation between India and Pakistan at that time should have provoked a second thought. So, mistakes have been made- by everyone, and are continuing to be made.
The question here is whether the obvious past US duplicity negates their current case. If you have read any of my previous postings, you'll know that I am not entirely sure they have a case, and have yet to be convinced that war is justified, and yet to be convinced that it is not. For purposes here, lets assume Iraq presents a grave global threat. Should the US really ignore the threat because it was one of numerous countries who helped create it?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-23 18:21:29
What I find most interesting about the 800 redacted pages is not the information contained in them. I think it's more interesting that the USA's act of unilaterally deciding what to snip out turned out to be OK with everybody.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-11 00:14:53
"Past US Duplicity"???? The USA at this time is providing arms to numerous third world countries to buy their votes at the UN.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-22 16:41:42
"banquosghost", I do agree with you on Rumsfeld's apparent duplicity.
IMO, he's probably no different or any better in the current context. None of us should be surprised to learn that many politicians are duplicitous. My views concern the issues and not the character of the parties involved. This applies also to Saddam Hussein.
In the early 1980s the US saw Iraq as a secular regime that would buffer the west from the Islamic revolution that was happening in Iran. We all know of numerous "deals with the Devil" that the US made in the name of pursuing "security" for the US. We should also keep in mind that it is not just the US who practises this form of diplomacy.
On the other hand, the issues regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein are real. The Iraqi regime has continued to defy the greater world community's efforts to prevent WMD proliferation and is entering a point when Iraq may soon become out-of-reach of UN enforcement. More importantly perhaps is that it has also become an issue of credibility and relevance for the UN should it again fail to enforce its resolutions. And finally, should the US also fail to follow through on its intentions, other nations with ambitions or apprehensions regarding WMD will likely embark on WMD programs for self-interests as neither the UN nor its policeman, the US, would have demonstrated the will to enforce non-proliferation.
I have never described the US as a nation to emulate or even glorify. What I try to make clear to people is that the world is at a watershed and nations like Canada must get off the fence and face the imperfect options that we have.
The US is not ideal as a protector of world community interests but it *is* the only nation capable of overcoming military threats such as these. It is also the only nation with sufficient checks-and-balances that make it a palatable enforcer. Should the US proceed on its own then it will justifiably treat its relations with all the dissenting nations as suspect. And should nothing be done about WMD proliferation and people continue to wait for "perfect" solutions we would probably have to repeat history, perhaps just for one last time.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-22 20:19:24
Vox, it's going to happen. Nothing I say or you say or anyone else says matters in the least. The US is going in, all alone if need be, even without Britain if need be.
The new US hegemony, if not empire, is a blunt force reality I agree.
How to behave in the court of empire and find your level has always been a tricky proposition.
In many ways the eunuchs of old played it the smartest. Becoming indidpensable to the efficient running of empire without being even once perceived as a threat to the power. Warriors were a more risky role, especially if they didn't get killed off before achieving hero status or high rank. Artists, poets, musicians etc could always be used for subterfuge and espionage and didn't much care who paid for their bread and wine. Courtesans and courtiers had a tiptoe act. Power can sometimes become obssessed with the services of a particular courtier or courtesan and that can be pretty dangerous because courtiers and courtesans are basically deceivers toward an end of giving pleasure, either physical, emotional or spiritual and once power discovers it has been deceived it can get bloody pretty fast. Power of course has no qualms about employing deception itself, it just hates having it deployed against itself, even unsuccessfully. Personally I've always rather fancied the role of the old jester. The one who gets to crudely remind power that his shit still stinks just like everyone else's.
I don't imagine that this particular imperial experience will be much different for the world than all the others we've had down the centuries. Most of the countries of the world will figure out how to accomodate themselves to the new realities and the ones that don't will be classified as trading pariahs or pagan states or something worse. US Constitutional guarantees won't mean much if you're not a Roman, oops, US citizen. Gopod knows there's enough US citizens right now scared to death about what John Ashcroft is doing to those Constitutional guarantees.If those frightened souls are correct the freedoms that have characterized US public life for a couple of hundred years might be being slowly withdrawn anyway like a torture of a thousand cuts.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-16 15:14:50
Thankyou...
Read this article by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek. http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0ql=csp&cp1=1
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-17 10:59:52
What is it specifically about this long article that you wish to refer to?
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-17 18:12:49
The writer has for months been supporting the Bush administrations push. They have been right in most everything they've done. His qualifications of their stance have been largely cosmetic. Until now. If Faered Zakaria is slipping into the "maybe not Bush" camp anything then most bets go back to being open. Not on Bush's attack, I've said all along that that's coming no matter what. But his political future will now bear the burden of more than just the domestic economic collapse. He'll wear the destruction of traditional alliances as well...the diminishment of those alliances will not be able to be fobbed of on Faux News or CNN as the madness of those old Euros.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-18 16:44:46
What's so traditional about an alliance with Germany?
France is the only "traditional" ally that the US has had VERY heated exchanges with. But, France pulled out of active participation in NATO a while ago, so is it really a "traditional" ally?
France's foreign policy towards Canada, since DeGaulle has been overt or quiet support of Quebec separatism without any thought as to the entirely destructive consequences that such an event would have on Canada.
I recommend PBS - the Newshour, particularly. Its easy to dismiss CNN or Fox, but I find it more difficult to label PBS as "gun-loving, war-mongers itching for a fight".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-18 21:28:40
http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm seems to indicate that France is still a member in good standing of Nato.
France's foreign policy supports french speaking populations every where on the globe. Quebec is the largest french speaking population outside of France and gets lots of support and personally I salute that.
I love Quebec being a part of Canada but should Quebecers decide that their global future lies more securely in more autonomy for themselves and the only way *THEY* feel that can be achieved is through separation from Canada then I'm going to be one of those bizarrely contrary western Canadians who is going to support that. I have felt for a long, long time that part of Canada's uniqueness in the western world was the presence of that marvelous gallic energy at our core. I am absolutely not going to try and repress it, or control it, or deny it. I celebrate it and I have no desire whatever to pretend that it isn't unique or distinct because it is both.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-19 13:23:01
We Quebecers have been asked twice to decide whether to separate or not, and we have said NO. Many of us in Quebec believe that while we have a distinct society, this is not a unique position in Canada - Newfoundland, at least, is a distinct society.
France's support of Quebec separatism is not support for the french speaking population - it will ultimately make the francophones, allophones and anglophones of Quebec poorer and more bitterly divided.
I would assume, given France's trepidation about the post-war Iraq efforts that the US will undertake, that they understand full well how badly hurt Quebec would be if in fact 50%+1 decided create a country that
50%-1 really don't want.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-19 13:28:39
Also Banquo, Montreal is a distinct society within the Quebec nation.
1) Its linguistically and demographically different.
2) Its economically different.
3) It votes completely differently from the rest of Quebec.
4) It suffers from a fiscal imbalance with the rest of Quebec.
So, a Quebec nation would have a distinct society with separatists leanings to contend with, namely Montreal (this applies probably to Cree-controlled territory as well).
You could go on forever with the distinct society stuff - I mean, Lachine, a suburb in Montreal, is arguably a distinct society within the Monteal nation, etc, etc.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-19 06:46:31
"France's foreign policy towards Canada, since DeGaulle has been overt or quiet support of Quebec separatism without any thought as to the entirely destructive consequences that such an event would have on Canada."
Is this still true? I'm not so sure about this, do you have some facts?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-20 13:22:40
There are more recent evidence of France's meddling. You only have to look.
I think people have very short memories. Here's one from a July 27, 1997 Financial Post article:
"...Pierre Messmer is a former Prime Minister of France, Phillippe Séguin President Jacques Chirac's personal emissary, Dominique Boché French Consul General. Surrounded by tri-couleurs and fleurs-de-lys, (no maple leaves, thank you), all three were guests of honour at last week's separatist festival to unveil a statue commemorating the 30th anniversary of de Gaulle's most famous anti-Canadian remark, "Vive le Québec Libre." Never say the French government didn't approve - hardly surprising, since Chirac went on US TV during the '95 referendum campaign and announced that the French would recognize a separatist UDI. Canada didn't protest then, and given the Chrétien-Dion penchant for being sweet to the French, Canada won't protest now. More's the pity. ..."
Read it for yourself here:
http://www.equality.qc.ca/finpos5.htm#July%2027,%201997
And another..."...
Swift recognition was assured, archives show - Toronto Star November 8, 1999
QUEBEC CITY - France was preparing to accord Quebec official recognition as a sovereign country immediately after the Oct. 30, 1995, referendum if the Yes side had won, claims a new book on Franco-Quebec relations.
Author Frédéric Bastien, 30, who says he had access to the diplomatic archives of the French presidency and foreign affairs ministry while researching the 423-page study, asserts everything was in place for swift recognition of the new sovereign country.
Citing ``two highly placed French sources,'' Bastien says the actual wording of the official French position the day after a Quebec referendum victory would have been: ``Quebec sovereignty is a fact; all that is missing is its juridical form.''
... Seven weeks earlier, on Sept. 11, French President Jacques Chirac's personal envoy gave final assurances to Parti Québécois Premier Jacques Parizeau in Quebec city that France would instantly trigger the international recognition process after a referendum victory, Bastien writes.
..."
http://www.vigile.net/00-2/france.html
Chirac is a staunch Gaullist. There are other references and if I can find them easily so can you.
A separation by Québec will destroy Canada and will present a big problem to the US because France will once again have a foothold on North America - just as they did when they pioneered Lower Canada. Given the long string of confrontations between Gaullist France and the US I do not want to entertain what might happen if France goes at it using a foothold in this continent.
Do not be so incredibly foolish as to entertain a "idyllic" divorce with Québec. I love French Canadian culture and sentiments too but they are not good enough reasons for nationhood and they are certainly not good enough reasons for sparking misery for all French and Non-French Canadians. At some point the Americans will get involved once English Canada sees no choice but to invite the US in. Québec is not France but French Canadians may not realize that. People who cannot leave the past alone will be forced to relive it. I presume all of you study history.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-23 10:10:38
Your facts are right, and i do remember France's reaction when Premier Parizeau went to Paris. But I don't see any proof that France encouraged Quebec Separation recently (neither in the '95 referendum), i only have proof that they would recognize Quebec sovereignity swiftly. Which is normal since Quebec is mostly french speaking....
If you have proof that they actively encouraged sovereignity in the last referendum, please let it be known, as i don't personally know of any.
p.s : The Equality party, just like the PQ are, in my opinion, very biased sources of information.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-24 20:27:08
Yes, you are right that the French government only confirmed to Parizeau that it would immediately recognize Québec sovereignty. On the surface, that normally would only appear as an unseemly and tactless gesture from one sovereign nation (France) against another (Canada). This is what the general population would assume.
However, if you spend any time scratching your head to figure out what in the world a tiny separate Québec, marooned in the middle of North America would plan to do with its new-found independence you would come to a different conclusion.
No Québec "prime minister" would have any doubts about how English Canada would react to a "divorce". It would be very messy and Québec would face huge economic problems immediately. How do you think it will get out of that jam? Trade with English Canada? English USA? Do you think Québec would get great terms given its resulting weak position? You think Québec would trust the "big brother" version of English Canada? Don't you read the polls in Québec?
A separated Québec would immediately seek an economic union with France. France would greatly welcome the vast untapped resources in northern Québec and would also control the entire St. Lawrence seaway.
Give it some thought. Imagine you were Parizeau. What would you do in his place? Would you come begging to negotiate trade deals in English?
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-24 20:33:32
Oh, in case you need an extra "nudge and a wink", I suspect Chirac also told Parizeau verbally that France would welcome an economic union. I mean what good is recognition of sovereignty without trade? At that point, do you think France would care if Canada protested that "...the ink on the divorce papers have hardly dried"?
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-27 03:48:49
What you wrote is true, but that does not mean that France is actively supporting separation, if Quebec separates they will be the first to recognize it, that I'm pretty sure...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-28 18:23:39
Given the Gaullists' record and evidence that I've seen I believe this is a case where "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-20 13:33:22
I have not read other articles by Fareed Zakaria's but I assume your impressions about his change of heart are accurate.
I am not convinced by Zakaria's article but I do think some of his arguments are valid. This article reads like something from Geraldo Rivera. If Zakaria did perform an about-face in opinion then the degree of rhetoric he uses shows a lack of contemplation that one would expect from someone who "until recently" must have held a very different view. Instead the article reads like someone very eager to appear as a "guru" and someone eager to please public opinion. IMO, a truly effective analyst seldom pleases differing sides of opinions because facts and the truth often taint all sides.
All the same, the main thrust of his article is that Bush and his administration is abusing their power. Zakaria tries, with mixed success, to paint a picture of a country that has lost its credibility because it no longer connects with its allies and has become blinded by its superpower status.
After 9/11 the US pretty well treated the Al Qaeda and related threats like Iraq to be direct threats to the US that no longer allowed the open timeframes that is typical of past UN fiascos. Response against Afghanistan was hard to deny but Iraq has been much more frustrating to build consensus over. All the same the US considered itself at war immediately after the intent of 9/11 was understood. The US has now been mobilizing all of its infrastructure for a long term war on Al Qaeda and other rogue entities that pose the same threat to the US. Bush made explicit statements to these preparations and the follow-ups to Afghanistan. None of this is news.
Against this backdrop, some of the Bush's support has been counselling him to try and convince other nations and the UN of the imperative to act on these threats. While other Bush supporters wanted to bypass the UN entirely Bush nevertheless gave Colin Powell and Tony Blair support to buy time for diplomacy. The US is mindful of the world stage post-Iraq and also needed some time to build up its forces in the region.
We cannot deny that both Blair and Powell have been tireless and diplomatic in their attempts to win over their detractors. In fact, countries like France, Germany, Russia and China did not even have to offer material support. If they would have merely recognized an ultimatum to enforce controls on rogue nations who develop WMD they would have gained some say over how the US conducts the war and the aftermath. By rejecting the threat that is so real to the US and by refusing to set any clear deadlines for disarmament, nations like France and Russia made it impossible for the US to not take unilateral action, in essence killing off much of the UN's hope to influence future conflict of this nature and forging a major rift in global mindset. France is not under death threats like the US and if it cannot appreciate the mortal dangers then the US has no choice but to cast any French opinion aside. No one on threat of death is going to have much patience for another who merely wants to play political games at their expense. That is why the US is so blunt - the time for games is over. Actually it is interesting that the French would force this outcome in global politics. You can learn much if you read up on Gaullist politics. Aside from its influence over post-Iraq Europe and the world stage, it also has particular implications for Canada.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-20 19:33:12
Vox, do you truly believe that Iraq http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/iz.html is capable of being a "death threat" to the US http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html. Check particularly the gdp and purchasing power figures.
I provide those links to the CIA World Fact Book but the book is not my book and the figures are not my figures.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-20 21:37:01
Yes I do.
I don't know what your background is but Iraq'a capacity to support terrorism has nothing to do with comparative GDP or any economic indicator. Were you completely asleep when analysts way back in the late 80s and early 90s warned the world would likely become much more dangerous after the fall of the Iron Curtain due to the "loss" of WMDs from a decrepit former USSR, terrorists as well as small rogue states? The fact that you would use GDP as an indicator of a nation's capacity to threaten the US with WMD suggests to me that you do little or no research on the matter.
Iraq as well as other marginal states like Iran, Libya and Syria have officially sponsored terrorist groups for many years. It is in their nature given their current regimes. Iraq was home to Abu Nidal as well as Hamas. Senior Al Qaeda have traveled and had secret meetings in Iraq. Iraq has also provided some chemical warfare training for Al Qaeda in the past. There's more and you only have to look up a few books and research old news articles. I suspect none of these individual events is sufficient to "pass muster" with detractors because they do not actually show Iraq actually passing weapons or exchange "services" with Al Qaeda. There is no "smoking gun" although Al Qaeda and Saddam have certainly been "passing the gun between themselves".
The US is also not solely worried about Al Qaeda. It is worried about countries like Iraq, Iran and North Korea developing sufficient long range WMD to threaten US interests. Both Syria and Libya are no longer of primary concern because they have responded to international and US pressure. The US probably believes the UN as it stands will not be able to control Iran and N. Korea if it cannot show resolve Iraq's problem after 12 years. If you have some memory of 9/11's aftermath you will recall that Bush named these 3 as the "Axis of Evil". Bush means to deal with each of them in time and in their respective fashion. Iraq is the hopeless case amongst the three because Saddam has an iron grip on his people and does not respond to any external diplomatic pressure. Iran does have moderating popular influence and some internal leverage while N. Korea is arguably more problematic for S. Korea, China (who denies it) and Japan (who will probably make China admit their concerns) in the short term.
I admit what the US is doing is scary but then Canadians have seldom been in the "line of fire". Your sense of danger as well as mine are very dull compared to those of people who must tread amongst the terrorists' home ground and bring home body bags. Canada is a lamb. I was not born in Canada. A few miles up river from where we lived our neighbouring country once used the river as a dumping ground for the dead bodies of people they executed for trying to escaping the country.
You need to realize that the reality in the minds of the US administration and their intelligence people are a million miles away from the comfort of our cosy little Canadian bedrooms.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
