|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-12 20:00:47
Americans are not our "best friends". Of course, we all have friends and relatives south of the border. But there is a difference between American individuals and the collective group we call Americans. Unfortunately, many people can't tell the difference.
The reason for this post is that every time the US acts unilaterally, and every time US politicians mouth off about Canada, politicians like Steven Harper and Peter Mackay jump up and announce that because the Americans are our best friends we should do what they want. It is as if these guys get their marching orders from Washington. Don't these guys understand that they were elected by Canadians to represent Canadians?
The attacks on our softwood lumber, wheat, pigs, steel, and fish should convince all but the simple minded that the Americans do not act as friends.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-13 15:21:38
You can't tell people they get marching orders from Washington because they don't agree with people attacking Americans ("I hate those bastards" was an attack on Americans).
Personally, I feel like Americans are our best friends because I deal with Americans more than any other nations citizens and I feel alot of kinship with the people I interact with.
Our societies share many points of commmonality.
Friends disagree and head in different directions sometimes. But that doesn't dsiqualify there friendship.
I am simple minded however. So, when you tell me that Americans are bullying us over softwood lumber and all, I am not fully convinced that Canada's trading policies are lily-white.
On softwood, I do think we tend to give our forests up to our multinational forest companies for next to nothing and I do think our desire to keep our dollar low (and therefore export friendly) hurts the softwood lumber industry. If our dollar was $1US, there would be no softwood lumber dispute.
But of course, its terrible of me to think that Canada is perhaps less than perfect on these trade issues.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-13 23:08:23
Don't confuse individuals with groups. I have relatives, friends and business acquaintances in the US and they are generally likeable people; easy to get along with, as you suggest. When you put individuals into groups, they often behave in ways that they would not when alone. It is the group "Americans" that I have a problem with; not the individuals. That group is presently the most powerful people on earth and acting with terrible immaturity. That group has to learn to join with other countries in order to solve trans national problems. What that group does is act unilaterally; Manifest Destiny; Pax Americana.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-14 23:55:08
So what you are saying is that all your American friends are fine as long as you keep em separated?
If you all get together for lunch, are you saying your American friends are manifesting into gremlins?
If so, you may have bigger problems then you think. :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-16 12:37:55
"If you all get together for lunch, are you saying your American friends are manifesting into gremlins? "
____________________________________
Of course not. However, if we did get together, none of my American friends would ever say, "Let's wage peace along side our Canadian brothers because they are our best friends." or "Let's accept abusive Canadian trade policy because they are our best friends." or "We better not say bad things about Canadians because they are our best friends." They just don't talk like that.
What they will say is, "We are number one and we don't care what Canadians or anyone else thinks about us."
(Read "THE ARROGANCE OF POWER" by US Senator William Fulbright. This was written as a responce to American involvement in Vietnam, but it still applies.)
I understand Americans who stand up for America. What I don't understand is Canadians who don't stand up for Canada when that means disagreeing with Americans.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-16 15:07:23
If your friends say" we are number one and don't care what Canadians or anyone else thinks about us" then you have very arrogant American friends. Many Americans feel the same as Canadians about peace especially in this situation; like most of us, they have listened to reports and come to their own conclusion. Many American companies are adversely affected by the trade wars and do speak up against them. The people are very similar to us; The present American government is not listening to us or its own citizens. Polls vary but most suggest that the American public does not want war without the UN approval.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-03-16 21:43:28
I have to disagree; I can name many Americans who agree strongly with the Canadian position on 1441. In fact many American people also supported Canada’s offstage proposal at the U.N.
Are there jerks? yes, but every country has them, I suggest that if your Americans friends are jerks, then they really are not your friends.
As far as trade policies, here is an interesting link for you;
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/14/freelumber_030314
I applaud the Canadian political fellows who changed tactics and may get a good solution to the lumber problem.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-18 14:54:54
" Are there jerks? yes, but every country has them, I suggest that if your Americans friends are jerks, then they really are not your friends. "
________________________________
My friends are not "jerks." Most of them would consider themselves to be patriots; including those who disagree with US policies.
My main concern is that Canadians should stop genuflecting to American policy and set our own course. In this, I truely applaud Chretien's steering Canada out of the Iraq mess. We need more of this independent action.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: warless
Date: 2003-03-18 18:51:36
Exactly. You don't put your friends out of business and then expect them to contribute millions of dollars in aid to fight their battles.
If they want our help:
a) solve the lumber dispute
b) make a better case for this war other than Bush wants war based on a gut feeling.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-20 09:15:26
We have to solve the lumber dispute. We are not 100% correct on that issue. To turn our backs on American soliders at this time because of softwodd lumber reveals our moral bankruptcy.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-24 14:42:06
Some people can say it better than I can. "Friends are not servants; best friends are not puppets." (from a letter in McLean's)
I guess what upsets me is the toady position of the Alliance Party, led by Steven Harper. He just refuses to stand up to the US on any issue. Real friends are not afraid to criticize.
I believe that relations between Canada and the US would be better if we Canadians would publicly stand up to US policy more often. (As long as we are polite and respectful about it. Name calling goes nowhere.)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-24 23:52:25
This is not about softwood lumber. It is about invading a country that is disarming under the eyes of UN inspectors. The majority of countries in the UN believed this process should be given time to work. The USA belongs and helped form the USA and agreed to abide their decisions. Canada owes her loyalty to her citizens not to get involved in what could be seen as a war crime. I am sure most Canadians feel regrets for American soldiers but that does not mean we should send our soldiers to risk their lives in an unjust war. When America is the victim and not the aggressor; Canada will be there.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-25 12:46:02
Well, certainly American troops would be safer (if only slightly) if they had the cover of our snipers and JTF2.
The majority of countries in the UN are not countries, they are illegitimate and despotic regimes who do not represent their citizens but actually rob and rape their citizens.
We cannot have a legitimate UN until all countries have governments that represent their citizens. Until such time, what the UN santions and does not sanction is insignificant.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-03-25 13:56:26
" We cannot have a legitimate UN until all countries have governments that represent their citizens. Until such time, what the UN santions and does not sanction is insignificant."
___________________________________
I understand your sentiments but disagree with your last sentence. I don't think that UN sanctions are insignificant. Admittedly, they could be better. What hurts the UN more than anything is countries acting unilaterally. The US is notorious for this, although they aren't alone.
The UN will improve vastly when the US learns diplomacy. (Don't hold your breath waiting.) As long as the US prefers to use its military, all other options will take a back seat.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-26 22:09:27
The countries within the UN are countries; they may not all be democracies. It is extremely important to have as many countries as possible within the UN. If countries such as China (not a democracy) were not represented; the UN would be very ineffectiveand have no purpose. These countries right or wrong do represent their people. If the UN was composed of only legitimate democracies and excluded countries that have or cause problems it would be a just a coalition of countries to control undemocratic countries. With these countries within the UN, they can be worked with and encouraged to be more democratic and fair to their people.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-04-12 01:07:41
What about countries that 'pay lip service' to the UN and not their dues and do not adhere to, or choose to veto resolutions?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-12 15:25:28
Countries that do not pay their dues should not have a veto. The USA does not pay its dues but actively uses its veto and doesn't adhere to resolutions and by backing and funding Israel allows them to ignore resolutions.
If the UN isn't changed immediately to reflect this changing world and with some hope of enforcement; It may become a charity to rebuild after the USA destruction.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fritzpat
Date: 2003-04-12 14:25:13
Who install those despotic and illegal government?And about China, their governement have all my respect, they are changing from communism to capitalism with all the problems it occurs(criminalty) and this with over a billion people to manage.
Americans are not friends, they're only business contacts.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-13 14:57:42
I think, with me, you are about the only one who doesn't scream at China. China will go through changes, and it will take much time, it will become soemthing in between extreme socialism and democracy...
Even though the Human Rights of China is not perfect, it will change for the better in time...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-13 20:37:50
I have no big problem with China especially now. I hope it becomes more involved in world affairs. China may be our best hope to slow down American aggression. America sees itself as the only super power and is using that position to control world affairs. The Americans are even trying to destroy the effectiveness of the UN.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-14 05:20:47
China should progressely remove censorship (especially regarding religious groups)... so there are less violation of basic human rights.
China will become a superpower over time, maybe not the military superpower, but with 1 billion people, and the country going through market economy, nobody will resist them...
Currently, the US has a GNP of 10000 Million US$ while China as 6000 Million US$ ... Its only a matter of time before the US loses out.
I don't think China should become more active on the world stage, i like isolationists very much - i think it represents wisdom over imperialism. But with all US copanies wanting to get in China, i can tell you that China can ask the US for almost anything...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-15 11:32:08
I would like to know what Chinese Canadians would think of your respect for the communist regime.
My brother-in-law's father paddled an inner tube to Hong Kong to escape the regime and no one in that family would agree with your statements. But that's just anecdotal.
China's economy is the size of Canada's. I think China is a LONG way from catching the US. But, is catching the US a bad thing? Even for the US? I don't think so.
For now, any gains in the Chinese economy will not hurt the US, rather it will hurt Central and South America as these regions produce a similar range of products at higher labor costs. For example, labor in El Salvador is about twice that of labor in China - mainly because you can't hire 6 year olds in El Salvador.
Any shift to China in trade terms hurts people we don't want to hurt.
China is isolationist only because it wants to reserve the right to crush protestors with tanks.
There is nothing benign in China's isolationism.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 13:22:15
I never said China was perfect, but compared to others...
From the CIA world factbook 2002:
GDP (2002), estimated:
United States: 10082 Billion US$
China: 6000 Billion US$ (8% growth)
Japan: 3550 Billion US$ (-0.3% growth)
Canada: 923 Billion US$ (3.5% growth)
I simply don't know how you compare Canada's economy with China's...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-16 21:41:34
But codco, China's trade power will make it more active. It need not be military active. Economic concessions can be very powerful too and influence a lot of decisions. I would like it fine if everyone would reduce arms but America seems headed the other way now.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 13:23:09
I don't like if a power becomes too active on the world stage, but this is my personal opinion...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-17 22:08:42
normally, I would agree with you but we need someone with power to hold back the Americans from doing anything they please. Bush is busy ordering countries around way too much for my peace of mind.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-18 08:44:33
Yes, but China should not do the same as the US... I understand your point of counterbalance, but I'm sure the hawks in Washington are already worried about China's power.... So thats enough for me! :)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Outwest
Date: 2003-04-15 12:43:25
I agree totally, they are not our best friends. I find it apalling to see how the U.S. suddenly jumps all over us for not backing this war especially after all the help we gave in throwing out the Taliban, and on Sept 11 when we allowed all their flights diverted here. We backed them 100 per cent until they did something we thought was wrong. Then all these jerks like Pat Buchanan say mean spirited things about our country. I thought it was great when our politicians yelled things about them. We need colder U.S. relations so they can stop manipulating our Government...then we will maybe get, dare I say it, other trading parteners of signifigance. It is time for Canadians like Harper to realize their constant sucking up to the States hurts us more than it does us good.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cougyr
Date: 2003-04-15 17:14:46
If Harper is as courageous as he implies, maybe he could get his friends in California to pay their electrical bill (they owe millions to BC Hydro). And he could get his friends in Washington to remove the softwood lumber tariff. And he could get his friends in the Pentagon to remove their submarines from Georgia Strait.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-17 08:14:03
Maybe Harper could suggest his Americans friends look at how they have been helping Israel stir up hatred and problems in the Middle East by constantly violating UN resolution and human rights. Israel has a huge file of human rights violation too numerous to list but funded and aided by the USA. Included are collective punishment and torture.
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast5.hmtl#top
Human Rights Watch certainly not a biased report.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-18 10:26:50
I don't think it was "great" that our politicians resorted to name calling. I do expect a little more diplomatic restraint from then; criticism with dignity. Dhaliwal's comment that Bush is no statesman was quite appropriate though. That is not a childish insult. I don't see that remark as the insult the press claims; just a statement of fact. Even Bush's close advisors realize he has a very rough diplomacy.
Harper is just being very childish and juvenile and a not very patriotic. I do believe that if Chretien had decided to support the "coalition" he would be criticizing that. Harper does not make his stand known in a dignified rational way; his retorts are more in the mud slinging and frivolous style. His constantly "harping" on the same issues instead of offering something more constructive turns me off. He presents no argument for backing the Americans in this issue other than the "best friends and trading partners" retort.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-21 10:12:18
I didn't like Dhaliwal's statement at all. He was basically saying:
"We didn't support you because we didn't like the way you asked."
This is fine in elementary school, but between government officials? I worry that we make our decisions based on whether we like how they were presented, not on the content or substance of the issues at hand.
Plus, it wasn't statesman like of our ambassador (Chretien Jr.) to announce that our government wanted Gore to win the presidency. This is just plain foolish because you don't know who is going to win and your job is to work with either one - Gore or Bush.
Why didn't Dhaliwhal say that Chretien Jr. wasn't very "ambassadorial" when Raymond said what he said?
Do only American politicians have to be statesmen?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-21 17:22:00
Don't translate for others. He said what he said; not a big deal.
Bush was not asking he was demanding, bribing, and threatening, He was putting himself and the Americans Above
all other countries or the UN.
Ambassador Chretien should not have spoken out but Cellucci the American ambassador has done much more meddling and mouthing off in Canadian affairs .
No one claims the US president or our politicians have to be statesmen to be successful but if they are looking for support it is best they remember you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Bush is very arrogant and pushy
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: dmfouille
Date: 2003-04-24 10:45:09
Tout d'abord permettez moi de présentez : je suis david Fouillé. A vrai dire, je n'ai aucune bonne raison de participer à ce forum et mon avis n'a que peu d'importance puisque je ne suis pas Canadien (quoique j'ai rêvé d'y aller voire d'y vivre) mais je trouve que l'idée d'un forum organisé par votre gouvernement est tout simplement excellente et ultra démocratique.
Les Américains sont-ils vos amis ? nos amis ? sans faire d'antiaméricanisme primaire, on peut se poser la question à la lumière des récents évènements. Mes amis ne me mentent pas, respectent mon opinion, ne trichent pas, ne truquent pas les documents qu'il me présente, n'essaient pas de me punir ou de me dominer. Or les Américains et les Britanniques ont fait tout cela
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-25 08:51:09
Peut-etre les americains ne sont pas vos amis, mais, ici a Quebec, il n'y a aucun president de l'EU qui a encourager la demolition de notre pays, Canada. Ceci est reserve pour le president de la France. Alors, vraiment, est-ce-que les Francais sont nos amis?
Tricher et menter n'est pas exclusif au americains et britanniques. Mais nous, les Canadiens jouent des jeux comme ca.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jimlyn
Date: 2003-04-25 07:47:19
What are friends for if not for each others mutual benefit.In the case of Canada/American relationship I do not see the term friend being applied here.What I do see is a one side relationhsip,all for one(Americans)and little as possible for the other(Canadians).Is this just special treatment from the Bush administration or has this treatment been applied to the so called friendship in past administrations?We as Canadians have a sharing nature which is not receprical south of our border.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-25 22:22:04
The Americans have always had the upperhand but I definitely believe this has been taken to another level by Mr. Bush. It appears that this relationship will deteriorate furthur if we do not take orders better. I hope we do not cave in and become
America's obedient little puppy dog. We will never grow as a country if we do not follow our own hearts and follow the course that we see as the fairest to all. Canada should continue to support the UN and work towards strengthening the UN so that it will be more effective in dealing with International disputes and helping other countries to become self sufficient and secure,
Reply to this message
|
|
