|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-01-28 19:50:30
As I read through many of the postings on this site, I detect a strong anti-American sentiment (as I do throughout much Canadian Media and conversation). In fact, I now know 4 Americans who have lived in Canada (working on either doctoral or M.Sc. degrees), who were continuously ridiculed and subjected to heaps of abuse simply because they were American (and this was prior to the Bush administration). They all felt hurt, insulted and unwelcome- quite contrary to how I feel while travelling and working in the US. The experiences shared by these four individuals quite frankly made me feel ashamed and embarrassed. Canadians, spearheaded by the CBC which consistently portrays Americans as stupid and uneducated, seem to feel a need to subject Americans to hostility, insults and abuse which would be labelled bigoted and outrageous if directed against any other nationality. I refer to this phenomenon as the Canadian National inferiority complex. We have a fantastic country which we should be proud of. Our country has a distinctly different history and culture than the US. We do not need to childishly distinguish ourselves from our American Neighbours, with whom we share the largest undefended border in the world, by constantly insulting them. We don't have to like George Bush's policies very much, but like all republican Administrations, these policies are a temporary entity. America is a large country composed of over 300 million individual people, each with feelings and aspirations just like all people. At the moment, America is a country still deeply traumatized by 9/11, -we need to understand that. Our need to untastefully distinguish ourselves from Americans is the most UnCanadian activity we engage in. So please, before insulting Americans and engaging in long anti-American diatribes, give that some thought.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-01-30 13:47:44
I agree. It is so weak and petty to insult americans individually or to attack them as a mass. The american society is heterogeneous and extremly dynamic. To lump all americans into one thought pattern is a delusion. I may be Canadian, but that doesn't mean I sigh with relief everytime Ottawa has a subsidy for someone. I don't get all excited at the thought of some new regulatory scheme or socialist initiative.
If Canada becomes a bastion of racists who hate americans and israelis, then its time to move south.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: afrancis
Date: 2003-01-31 16:17:39
Apart from government officials, I haven't read anything here that ridiculed ordinary citizens directly. I don't remember seeing anything of the sort on the CBC either. Speaking for myself, I strongly voice my disagreement with US policies, policy makers, and government officials (more often than not, Republicans).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-03 10:21:29
On the CBC (radio), the first question out of a reporter's mouth when interviewing an expert after the Columbia tragedy was whether the tragedy was due in part to American "arrogance".
My question is, how does American "arrogance" manifest itself? If not in the acts of the people and the government that it supports.
Also, the MEGA HIT "Talking to Americans" was on CBC. This show directly aimed at American citizens and demonstrated how "STUPID" they are. (Of course, CBC chooses not to host a "Talking to Canadians" which could do the same here.)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-03 10:27:45
Oh and did you notice how one respondent congratulated you on the article you found talking about sensible americans and there hesitation to go to war. The person said, "most americans still believe the lies told to them." If that doesn't insulth the intelligence of average americans, I don't know what does.
Just calling anti-war americans "sensible" is in itself an insult. As though people pushing war are not sensible. Perhaps those pushing war, against their own best hopes, are the sensible ones.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Roberge
Date: 2003-02-04 19:54:18
Well, if it can comfort you, all Canadians don't feel anti-American.
I consider myself an American. I feel more passionate about the American elections than the Canadian ones.
I completely agree with you except for one thing, when you say "Our country has a distinctly different history and culture from the US." I think we are not that much different and that all that stuff about "being different" serves only patriotism and the interests of the Canadian establishment; I think it's a mental construction that doesn't reflects the reality.
I think, however, that being an American also means not to conduct ourselves like citizens of a banana republic. That's where I diverge from former Minister of Foreign Affairs John Manley. He sometimes made me looked as if I belonged to the adverse side (Anti-American) because he looked so much as if he were saying "yes, yes, yes" to the Americans -- it's not for nothing that he has been chosen Canadian of the year by a famous American magazine last year. Among themselves, Americans, let's take for instance, reps or governors of U.S. states never behave like heads of banana states.
I feel more and more like an integrationist. I think that as a woman I don’t have any interest to promote patriotism because patriotism is usually, if not always, promoted on the back of women, for instance by using them to push demographics up. Countries are then in a competition among themselves to have the largest population or not to fall behind. And with the problem of global demographics, I think, it’s also bad for the environment.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-05 09:47:36
Roberge,
Your point is very important and interesting:
Patriotism is a dangerous and destructive force in international affairs.
I also think we Canadians have a lot in common with Americans and our histories are as close as two nations get.
We do act like we are from a Banana Republic on both sides of the approach: toadying yes-folk versus knee-jerk reactionaries.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Roberge
Date: 2003-02-09 15:02:09
In reference to my previous message, and to follow up, I have one suggestion to make to Mr. Manley. Why not negociate to get two observor's seats at the Congress, one for the Senate and one for the Reps. It would assure us a presence in the inner cirle of Washington that no other State has. To have a direct presence is one of the most important thing to ensure the success of our links with the U.S., and nearer this presence is, better it is, and if we can be directly inside the circle, let's do it. Every other country, including France, will die of envy. That's the thing to do.(Oh, and I’m sure Mr. Pettigrew, minister of International Trade, won’t disagree.)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: conroyr1
Date: 2003-02-19 22:30:49
As a British Columbian(Prince George), I must admit that although I was once pro-American, I am now pro-Canadian and sometimes rabidly anti-American. One has only to look at our economy to see the effects of positions taken by our big brother to the south. America has become more protectionist, more hegmonic, more intrusive, more - well you get the picture.
However as a knee-jerk liberal, I find that I often have to defend Americans. As a people (I grew up at a resort), I have found them energetic,enthusiastic, profound, warm, caring and 'just down-right neighborly'! Stupid they are not; GW is not a moron;(however, I do like 22 minutes - Talking to Americans)
The US has provided assistance to so many peoples that it is now expected if not demanded. I can understand that GW might be annoyed at Canada, France,and Germany but he suffers from a profound American ailment. They will not listen to anyone else; hell they won't even listen to themselves. They believe that they cannot be wrong(and they will do everything in their power to rise above the bloody calamity of Vietnam)They simply do not comprehend the tragedy of sending another generation of young Americans to their death. They simply do not comprehend the carnage of 'collateral damage' inflicted on the innocent. Somehow cannot project the tragedy and suffering in New York to another place, another time and another people.They suffer from the position of the righteous - and - they suffer from 'Iraqnophobia'
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-20 20:03:08
Instead of stating that you are sometimes "rabidly anti-American", meaning that you ferociously and fundamentally object to many millions of people who feel precisely the same way you do, why don't you state that you are rabidly anti-republican, which I think is really what you mean (but maybe not).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: YvonLattrapé
Date: 2003-02-21 15:54:39
Dear jwitt, you are absolutely RIGHT!!! Shame on those who don't understand that the President of the United States of America, the Great George W. Bush (May God Bless him!), is actually building a world of Peace and Justice.
As a Canadian citizen, only one thing frustrates me, which is the deplorable fact that I cannot get a membership card of the Republican Party of the U.S.A. We sould change our legislation as soon as possible to allow anyone in Canada who wants to become a proud member of the Republican Party of the USA to do so.
George W. Bush is a sensible man, he wants to help the poors and he is a man of great compassion. He is the guide we should follow, the leader we should obey to. He is the supreme guarantee for human rights and social justice.
A admire G.W. Bush. He is superb. He is not only the President of the USA, but of the Free World. Hail to the Chief!!!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-02-22 13:47:54
You seem to have missed my point entirely. So, let me spell it out for you more clearly.
MANY AMERICANS STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH REPUBLICAN PARTY POLICIES (JUST LIKE I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH REPUBLICAN PARTY POLICIES) AND DID NOT VOTE FOR G.W. BUSH IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO, BE CAREFUL TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN REPUBLICAN PARTY POLICIES AND AMERICAN SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. BE EVEN MORE CAREFUL TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS AND REPUBLICAN PARTY POLICIES.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: YvonLattrapé
Date: 2003-02-22 17:55:35
Thank you, dear JWitt, for your clarifications.
I maintain that G. W. Bush is the greatest President ever, and that we, Canadians, must be grateful for the policies elaborated by the american Republican Party, because the Republicans, guided by their Great Leader G. W. Bush, are fighting for the freedom of us all.
I also accept, as you suggest, to distinguigh between Republican policies and American Society as a whole. Such a disctinction is important, because it shows that American Society is not perfect because it is virtually impossible for it to 100% adhere to Republican policies.
Thanks a lot for your kind enlightment.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-02-25 05:50:14
I totally agree with you, I like the American people very much. They are very kind and warm.
What i don't like is the American government as a whole. They use the American media to "lie" to their own people, and try to convince them of things which are absolutely not proven
by fact. I actually feel pity for the American people to have to endure the
government propaganda.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-25 15:43:23
I'm sure Americans are grateful for your pity. But, I don't think they would agree with your singling out the US government as a creator of propaganda:
Every government uses the media to "lie" to their own people. Propaganda is a tool of every government in every time.
The CBC is a STATE OWNED corporation.
But they couldn't possibly spread propaganda. No! Never! Not a Canadian media outlet owned by the Canadian government. We are much too honest and frank to let that happen.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-02-25 17:36:20
Everyone uses propaganda, i must agree with you, but i think the US government is quite expert at manipulating the media in general. This expertise is much less pronounced in other countries (even though it does exist). Take the case of the butchering of Kuwait babies by Iraq soldiers in the 1991 War, that was a total fabrication of the US news media (I don't recall if this news was given first by US independent news or the US government - i don't know the full facts about this).
Some people used to watch CNN only for world news (until recently), and these people told me that Saddam Hussein should be destroyed at all costs because he is evil... I told them to try to diversify their source of information a bit, and these people have now become much more relativistic in their views.
(the recipe : get the news from one or more right-wing sources, one or more left-wing sources, and some centrist sources (the sources should be from difference countries of course), mix everything, and then you can get the real facts and make your opinion)...
Some good sources of information
(for me - some are french):
www.cnn.com (of course)
www.cyberpresse.ca (Canada)
www.nationalpost.com (Canada)
www.globeandmail.com (Canada)
www.lemonde.fr (France)
www.courrinternational.com (This is a digest of several editorials of world newspapers - gives a world view of issues)
www.yahoo.fr (France)
Cheers!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-28 16:07:51
Agreed. The US is probably better at it than most, they are better at almost everything than most.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-01 10:59:39
G.W. Bush is a very dangerous man.He is hell bent on war and to destroy the United Nations.Retired Canadian general Romeo Dallaire stated that the US and Britain are setting up the UN inspectors to fail by giving half-hearted support; leaving the two countries to wage war without its approval. In my opinion; it is GW Bush and Tony Blair that are setting up the UN to fail and that they are denying any support or credibility to the UN. This includes financial support as the US is 2 years in arrears paying its share of dues to the UN last report I read. Their motives are in my mind so that America can control the world . We have seen numerous examples of American protectionism of their trade while trying to tell Canada how they cannot subsidize or protect jobs by having our lumber processed in Canada. The US wants our raw resources and jobs. Yet they protect their raw timber from export to Japan. I do not feel anti American but I do fear their present leadership and practices. Bush is trying to take world control by bribes of armnaments and threats of economic pressures
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-01 13:12:31
I should have added; that I am not anti=American; it is only this aggressive very out of control dangerous present administration that scares me. The American people are no different than us. Some good some bad but that can be said of any country, It is not the people but the government controlling them and shaping their views
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: YvonLattrapé
Date: 2003-03-04 23:45:05
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. George W. Bush (may God bless him!) in not dangerous. He is not a morron. But do you want to know what he actually is? President Bush is the great and amazing leader of the Free World. President Bush is entirely dedicated to Peace, Love, and Justice. Also, his powerful intellect is the supreme guarantee that the world is going in the right direction.
George W. Bush's wisdom must be accepted by Canada. We have this amazing chance of being the very neighbour of the country that is leaded by that amazing man named George W. Bush. His deep and brillant analysis of the world's situation is essential if we want to understand what our duty is. Canada must join President Bush and do whatever he would ask us to.
Instead of criticizing, we must praise President Bush, and also celebrate our amazing chance that is: being contemporary witnesses of his Blessed Presidency.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: grusso
Date: 2003-03-04 10:33:29
I agree that there are varying degrees of anti-Americanism in Canada, but as an American living in Canada (a landed immigrant), I must say that I have not felt put out at all.
Much of the sentiment one finds is related to "cultural imperialism," for example, the proliferation of US based big box stores, the dominance of Hollywood in our entertainment etc. But as I have always said to individuals who have confronted me, if they chose not to frequent these places of business, if they chose to encourage Canadian based enterprises, art, etc. then they would be empowered to "stem the tide," as it were.
Much of the "anti-Americanism" one finds in Canada assumes that Americans in general are either flooding Canada with cultural items, and/or that the average American wants to annex Canada. Neither of these is a true statement. Anti-Americanism, I feel, is misdirected at the population when in fact, the problem is routed either in trade policies and the choices that Canadian consumers make every day or in other governmental agreements with the US.
With respect to foreign policy, anti-Americanism is likely a disagreement with the policy of the current US government and not with the people of the US. Even within the US there is a strong and growing sense of this form of "anti-Americanism" as it were. It is called "dissent." This is one of the great things about living in a free and open society that we are all entitled to our opinions and that we can express them.
In my own life, when confronted with either form of what is called "anti-Americanism," I do not take it personally, but rather, I try to redirect the legitimate concerns of whomever I am talking with and I ask questions about exaclty how or why they have come to feel the way they do. More often than not, I share their concerns and can suggest how they may take matters into their own hands and act on their feelings in their daily lives.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 14:57:10
Perhaps you have been spared the vitriol of a large segment of anti-american feeling. I guess that's because it is very rarely directed at any one person.
What bothers a small minority of Canadians with regards to our MPs calling Americans "bastards" is that we feel kinship with Americans and their way of living.
I can tell you, in the ordinairy course of the day, I would not be comfortable voicing any support for George W Bush and can be made to feel treasonous if I express a love for the American way. Even though, the American way is virtually identical to the Canadian way.
Yes, there are differences, but in the scheme of things, they are slight.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rapyke
Date: 2003-03-05 07:43:06
The Minister's letter contains the statement:
We will continue to work with the U.S. and other allies to protect the values that we hold in common, such as freedom, tolerance and respect for cultural diversity.
I believe it is this commonly held belief that leads to both 'anti-americanism' and the 'anti-anti-americanism' message contained in this post and thread.
We do NOT, in my view, share many common values with the USA. This popular myth is at the bottom of our somewhat schizophrenic national opinion of the USA.
The USA is intolerant of other cultures. From its earliest days it has been a 'melting pot' expecting and demanding that immigrants and refugees alike give up and revoke their ethnic and racial heritage. They waged a war of aggression on Native Americans and took the land they now call their country in a way that would be condemned anywhere in the world today. This is clear proof of intolerance.
Their much touted freedoms are put in question by their actions and by their constitution. Religous freedom is called into question by their reliance on the judeochristian God in whom they trust. Creationism is taught in schools - based on the bible. They allow and even encourage their citizens to 'bear arms' and their President has said very publically indeed, that "you are either with us or against us".
Is this America bashing? These are simple truths.
Canadians are not Americans - we are not even close to being Americans. Why then should we accept their world view?
Our rights as Canadians protect our right to question and express our views. Canada for example, has not established an off-shore prison in which we hold people we think may have had some involvement in the horrible events of September 11. The Americans have done this in contravention of international law.
The USA seems totally unwilling to accept any opinion aside from their own in any matter in which they take an interest. They are bussily buying allies with billions of dollars in military aid and calling all who question them 'enemies'.
Why on earth should I support such a state?
Why are the Americans pushing for an aggressive war on an independant nation (again)? Terrorism? Where is the proof? If any other nation on earth proposed a similar action they would be branded as an aggressive, evil nation - but the USA is correct in this?
Iraq is an unpleasant player on the world stage, but they are an independant country. If there are to be steps taken to correct their actions, let the United Nations or the World Court initiate those steps - support them and give them the resources they need to do their job.
Unfortunately, the United States has not accepted the World Court, nor has it paid its dues to the United Nations. Are these the actions of a nation that sees itself as a democracy, or are they the actions of an aggressive power intent on making war as a way to invade countries that they do not like?
The attack on the World Trade Centre was a crime on a large scale. Certainly not the biggest crime in history, but big. Crimes are the jurisdiction of the police, not armies.
When a person commits a crime, no matter how terrible, that person is arrested, and tried in a court. The country where she or he went to school is not put on trial. The army does not start a war to punish the state where she or he grew-up. Why is this any different?
No matter how hard I look, I cannot see any justification for the actions being taken by the USA.
I applaud the Canadian Government for its position to date - The United Nations is the only appropriate place to deal with these issues. If we want to extend Canadian values into the world, then democratic decision making is of primary importance.
The USA is wrong. Their actions are bordering on criminal.
That is not America bashing it is a simple statement of fact.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-05 09:59:50
I cannot disagree more. Except the "melting pot" versus "cultural mosaic" - our values are shared quite closely.
I say this because in the course of my day, in order to keep my family fed and sheltered, I must interact with say 50 odd americans.
Our daily lives are similar and we can relate to each other very much.
Not every American runs around with rifles spitting on immigrants. As much as it would please many Canadians to think so.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-05 10:03:08
How can you say Americans are bullying allies with aid?
Consider this:
American diplomats have a position. They argue forcefully for its allies to agree.
The allies see how rich America is and suggest that if America wants their support, they should cough up some aid.
It is entirely plausible that countries are trying to wring money out of the US as opposed to the US forcing money down their throats.
Where is the proof that the US is pushing instead of being pulled?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-05 15:58:07
Cfallon, I'm not convinced that there's any point in posting'proof'. You'd just shift the definition of 'proof' and dismiss what was presented as racist anti-americanism. Missing entirely the point that it isn't anti-americanism at all - just anti-Bushism, ant-warism, anti-unilateralism, anti-burning-civiliansism. It serves the war hunger well to lump all dissent under the bogeyman of anti-americanism. It doesn't serve the peace of the world well though.
Yesterday a lawyer in a New York shopping mall was arrested for wearing a T-shirt he'd just bought that said "Give Peace A Chance" on it. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-usa-shirt.html
Is he anti-american?
I can't help but wonder how much Turkey charged Alexander the Great or Darius to pass through/bivouac.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-07 12:01:18
Banquo's ghost,
I apologize to you for being so shifty. Must be my bad upbringing.
I don't think people against war are anti-american.
I don't think people against Bush are anti-american.
BUT, I don't think its appropriate to ascribe hidden and sinister motives to people who believe a different course of action is required from the course you advocate.
We agree that we want world peace, we disagree on how to achieve it. We each suspect the other's chosen approach will lead to greater instability and suffering.
But, the "anti-war" side won't accept the first point of agreement: we both want world peace. The "anti-war" side insists that oil greed and world domination is the objective.
So, its hard to have a legitimate debate when your motives are being challenged and held in dis-repute - which mine are constantly through these discussions.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-07 15:37:42
All right, let's see if we can leave motives out of it altogether.
Of course, it's already been established by many here that all countries mis-state or equivocate when it comes to motives on the international stage so we can't necessarily simply accept what those countries might say at face value. This problem deepens when the stated motivations given by countries alter as questions arise about those stated motivations.
So in the absence of clear and reliable information about motives how do we proceed? Do we simply assume *no motive*? Not feasible really. Unmotivated action is the domain of psycho-pathology and I don't think we want to go there.
Something always motivates rational human action. Sort of a truism. Also sort of a truism that humans always want to try to understand the motivations of those whose actions affect their lives. And even sometimes to understand their own motivations.
Unfortunately this understanding of motivations tends to require the asking of the question "Why?".
Which brings us back to the problem of not having reliable information. Unless it doesn't. Perhaps it's wrong after all to say that in all cases all countries mis-state or equivocate when it comes to their motivations. Perhaps *this* time there's a country telling the absolute truth about their motivations, about all their motivations, each time they state their motivations, no matter which official of that country makes the statement. But then we have to open the door to the possiblity that other countries are capable of the same thing, of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unless we don't and there's really only *one* country with the virtue of international truthfulness. That's a write off of the potential trustworthiness of an awful lot of humanity. Might not want to go there either.
None of which addresses the question of *your* motivation.
So, let's assume, for the sake of our conversation, that you have arrived at your point of view on your own, through your own in-depth research, independent of the views of USA or UK media, think tanks or governmental agencies. You have not been swayed or deterred either by mis-statements or equivocations. Neither have you bought into the notion that there is one country in the world and one only whose public statements of motive can be taken at face value and trusted.
You support war because you support war. That is the only non-speculative thing that can be said about your motivations. You don't support it because you believe the US and UK. You support it because you support it. Further to that, as you have said, you support it because it's a route to peace. Which, it must follow, we are not presently experiencing. Otherwise why go to war to acquire peace if we are already experiencing peace. So we must already be at war.
Which will lead us to peace, which is what you really want, and which we are apparently not presently experiencing.
----------------------
I want most fervently to end world hunger. By the logic of instigating war to achieve peace in a time of peace, I will have to see to it that many more people go hungry in order to achieve my goal.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-10 16:47:14
I understand and enjoy the clever logic of your argument, however...
1) I do think we are at war right now. As a Quebecer, I can assure you a society can be at war with itself without a single cut or kill. And the costs of such a cold war are enormous.
2) Also, on motivation - I rely on the constitution of each country as a measure of ultimate motive. I expect the citizens of each country to hold their leaders accountable for each tenet of their constitution. Its not sexy or clever, but that's how I feel.
3) I don't want to go to war. But I don't see how we lift sanctions on Iraq without assuring ourselves that there is no threat of a psychotic regime from using its immense purchasing power to kill many hundreds of thousands of people. I believe the genocide that Saddam has unleashed within his country is a dress rehearsal for what he'll do as soon as he returns to pre-sanction conditions.
Am I wrong? I HOPE SO!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: critictrue1
Date: 2003-03-10 19:36:28
Whose security concerns us?
Perhaps if the USA had not sold or given Iraq weapons of mass destruction we would not be in the present situation.
Why are we concerned about missiles with short ranges?
Is the goal to create a democratic state with Hollywood so that the Iraqi people will be able to see how we killed evil Saddam followers and helped the people. (US has bases in over 2/3 of the countries in the world. (Like the Roman Empire)
Even in Quebec, Canada we had terrorists and a desire to be free. ( I thought they were free in a free country.)
Lastly, Louis Riel that most honorable criminal that all Catholics and Francaphones need to thank.
Those that went west to KILL the devil received 1/2 section of land but the Metis, Poundmaker, Big Bear? > Castle Loma is a result of the moneys to be made.
Iraq needs to be destroyed for our security.
Intelligent people believe this?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-11 15:38:26
Uhh, no one says Iraq needs to be destroyed for our security. But let me ask you:
Do intelligent people think the sanctions aren't destroying Iraq as we speak?
Do intelligent people think Saddam is not destroying Iraq as we speak?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-10 19:56:04
"I do think we are at war right now. As a Quebecer, I can assure you a society can be at war with itself without a single cut or kill. And the costs of such a cold war are enormous." This is rather specious of you really.
"I rely on the constitution of each country as a measure of ultimate motive. I expect the citizens of each country to hold their leaders accountable for each tenet of their constitution." Me too. Where's the US Congress Declaration of War. That's their constitutional prerogative, not the POTUS.
"But I don't see how we lift sanctions on Iraq without assuring ourselves that there is no threat of a psychotic regime from using its immense purchasing power to kill many hundreds of thousands of people." Same way we did with a much more well armed Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. We contain and refuse to abandon diplomacy.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-11 15:44:47
Okay, so we agree that the motives of a country are ultimately derived from that country's constitution. We're getting somewhere.
I don't think containment will work. It did not work with the Soviet Union, we defeated them by outspending them, not containing them. They were quite successful at expanding their sphere of influence over large swaths of the globe.
You are correct, I should not have mentioned Quebec. I was a little over-zealous.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-11 20:08:55
"I don't think containment will work. It did not work with the Soviet Union, we defeated them by outspending them, not containing them. They were quite successful at expanding their sphere of influence over large swaths of the globe." OK...let's outspend Iraq. Pretty easy to do I should imagine. The Soviet Union is a curious artifact of history now. Whether we outspent them or deterred/contained them or whatever. We *did not* send 3000 Cruise missiles onto their heads. Maybe because we knew they had 3000 to send right back at us. Irrelevant really...the SU is no more and outright war was never declared.
Where did we get exactly with respect to constitutions? Can you 'splain to me what we can understand about the US motives by quoting from the US constitution and then advancing an argument about motives?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-12 11:06:56
Inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The "root causes" of terrorism are people living without access to these rights.
When the US acts to keep these rights from people of other countries, it acts in a manner that contradicts its principles and therefore is in bad faith.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-12 13:36:48
That's the Declaration of Independence actually. I do, however, take your point because in many ways the D of I is a more useful historical document when it comes to trying to understand some of the roots of the US psyche.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-12 20:01:25
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."...is the bit most relevant to our discussion here I think. This is in the second paragraph, not much more than a couple of sentences beyond the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness you alluded to.
This is then made more complex by the articulation of the theory of Manifest Destiny: "In 1845, a democratic leader and influential editor by the name of John L. O'Sullivan gave the movement its name. In an attempt to explain America's thirst for expansion, and to present a defense for America's claim to new territories he wrote:
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (copied from http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/manifest/manif1.htm)
So we have the "right of the people to alter or abolish" their government coloured by "the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole...", then continent, now world?
Food for cheap pop-psychological thought, ne? :-)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-13 15:29:00
Quite interesting stuff.
I think you are correct that the current update of that statement is "the world".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: critictrue1
Date: 2003-03-12 09:15:39
The Berlin Wall came down mostly because peoples behind the Iron curtain were able to receive telecommunications from the west. East Germans modified their TV receivers and saw how west Germany lived for example. People lived off the state but stopped producing. No longer did they believe the lies of their government and one day the American public will wake up as well and realize that Ari and the boys hold dual citizenship.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-12 16:47:43
Critictrue1:
This, along with that other comment regarding the Rothschilds comes across as a cryptic dig at a what? Some conspiracy that controls media and finance...
I really don't understand your point.
Dual citizenship with what country: US and Israel? Is that your implication?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-05 12:01:09
Americans are not intolerant of other cultures at all. When refugees and immigrants arrive in another country, it is quite normal that they adapt to the new culture, otherwise they should not go into that country! Yes, they did wage a war of aggression on native americans, but that was in the past. The French and British did the same with the colonialism, the arabs did the same in the middle ages to spread Islam. (The King (of England or France?) signed a treaty in the 18th century with the natives of Canada saying that large parts of canadian territory would forever be theirs without 'white' intervention... Look at Canada today).
This is all the past, i do not think there is any one single country which has not done something wrong in the past...
As for religion, i think it is the right of the American majority to believe in any God they wish, and if the government is also close to the majority i don't see any problem either
with that. You have your own personal opinions on weapons, God, etc., but the American people have another opinion. Why do you say your opinion is right while theirs is wrong? Are they violating any international law regarding this? No, so there is no problem. If you don't like the way they live, you should simply not live there. I think these points, are non-issues.
Regarding the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, the Americans considered they were attacked, and they did ask the taliban government to hand over Bin Laden, but the taliban said no. So US's response was entirely correct in that case, and i do think Canada would have done the same (if we had the resources of course).
As for the other points you mentioned, i agree with you. The US government does not take into account the rest of the countries when dealing with international issues, and that is not good at all. But this is not related to the US people, but the US government, which are two different things. I am against the war on Iraq, i am against the rejection of the Kyoto protocol by the US government, i am against many things the US government is doing...
But i do think that the Canadian people and American people are similar ... We share a lot in common with them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rapyke
Date: 2003-03-05 17:06:40
The US government is the US people. I have American friends too, but as a nation, they are collectively responsible for the actions of their government.
I also admit to having strong views on this topic, but the simple fact remains - The United States of America is about to engage in a war of agression with the stated goal of removing the lawful government of an independant nation. This proposed war is being urged and forced on the global community by the United States who has said they will proceed alone regardless of Global opinion.
Opposition to a war is building in the US and other countries around the world at a governmental level and a grassroots level and that is good. If the US follows through with its stated goal of war, it won't be enough though. I know that not all 'Americans' are in agreement with their Government - they are responsible for it though.
Do I hate 'Americans'? Certainly not! Their government however... that is a different story. Their President, their Commander in Chief, is about to lead them into committing an evil act of aggression.
Canada is right to take the position that the UN must decide. War in the Middle East will have global impacts - the global community must decide.
God bless America?
No.
God help America.
God help the world.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-06 07:18:59
Most of the points you just wrote i agree with...
But don't forget that when you elect a government, you don't necessarily know what that government will do down the road... I don't think Mr. Bush's government said they would invade Iraq while doing the election campaign... We have to take everything in perspective.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-15 04:49:39
I dertainly agree with you there codc01.
Elected government leaders often do not do as promised. We know that very well in BC. I believe there is a large segment of the US people who are against the war without UN sanctions. We will see by the Peace Marches this weekend. But Mr Bush ignores them as he does anyone who doesn't share his viewpoint.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-15 16:11:45
For me, the problem is not even Bush (well he's part of the problem by not saying no to all his advisors) but the crazy people behind him... Advisors who lived the cold war era and have not grown up since (Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld...)...
In all cases, i agree with you most US citizens who know the facts (a lot simply don't know the facts), are against war without UN backing...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-06 11:31:35
If the *people* of a country can be deemed to be accountable for the actions of the *government* of a country anywhere at all it's in a democratically governed country.
Which is what makes the idea of bombing a country where the citizens are under the thumb of a dictator all the more obscene. If the war is going to happen it should be a ground action with close and local air support to ensure only combatants are targeted.
But the big toys are just too much fun to leave at home. Wanna see the big bang-bang flash. Oh boy. Lookee there. It blowed up good.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jariax
Date: 2003-03-18 19:47:40
Well, I understand the frustration that you feel at seeing the citizens of our nation berate those of the United States, but the fact of the matter is that it is necessary.
American citizens are imbued with so much patriotism at a very young age such that they are incapable of viewing the USA as anything but a philanthropic entity doing fighting evil around the world. Despite the shameful history of the USA, they actually take pride in their country.
In terms of consumption, foreign aid, the differences between the US and Canada are not that great, you are right. Canada gives only about double the foreign aid that the US does as a percentage of GDP/capita. While this may seem a large difference, it is a paltry sum relative to what Europe gives.
While Canada does consume too much, and doesn't do enough to reallocate wealth to the poorest nations, at least Canada does not interfere in the workings of foreign governments to obtain a leader favourable to our corporate interests at the expense of the people - such as in Cuba, Chile and Iran.
Now clearly, there is a distinction between the government of a people, and the people itself. However those people are the ones that elect George Jr. They did this despite the disclosures of the Iran/Contra affair of his father. George Herbert Walker Bush should be tried as a war criminal and yet he is exonerted by the American public.
Meanwhile, the average American retains his/her ignorance of world affairs, knowing only that mutual funds are on the rise, diviends are paying out well and the economy is booming, never suspecting that a large part of the reason for American success is the exploitation of third world nations.
Shall we let Americans, who decide the fate of the world, live in this blissful ignorant fairy tale in which they are the protagonists of Planet Earth or shall we give them a wake up call and let their reception in foreign make them reconsider who they vote for?
It is the same as responsible consumerism. Should we just be quiet and not hassle the person buying Proctor and Gamble or Nike shoes or should we do our best to make them aware of the atrocities these companies perpetuate. And if they are not receptive to our criticisms, choosing instead to continue on in their apathetic indifference towards the rights of others, than we have no choice but to chastise and humiliate them such that even if they have not one spec of kindness in them, it still is in their best interest to change their behaviour.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-21 10:10:13
You say Canada does not interfere with the choosing of foreign leaders???!!!!
THAT'S AN ASTONISHING CLAIM!
In the last presidential election, our ambassador (Raymond Chretien) told the US that Canada would prefer Al Gore as president.
THIS WAS DURING THE ELECTION!
So, clearly Canada does interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-21 10:30:13
Did you know that governments have the right to have opinions??
There is a big difference when another country (such as the US) directly interferes in other countries, such as in Panama, Chile (Pinochet), etc...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-21 15:05:57
I think they should not try to interfere with the decisions that the citizens of another country want to make if those governments make "non-interference" a guiding principle.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-21 19:46:58
Is it interference when one countries traditional system of forestry allotment or grain sales are declared illegal by another country's government?
Is it interference when one country's election results are declared invalid and the country is blacklisted and then covertly undermined by another?
Or is interference only a principle that applies selectively and opportunistically?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-22 16:40:38
Interference is the corner stone of the UN mandate.
I think it would be a big mistake of us to eliminate the concept of elections monitoring in fledging democracies under the UN banner. I think that was one of the things the UN could do very constructively. I'm sorry Canada speaks to protect the UN, but acts to kill it.
And interference happens within Canada.
The Canada Health Act ensures the Canadian government can interfere with a province's jurisdiction.
We want free trade, then we create a legal framework for that freedom which allows parties in agreement to accuse the other's of illegal trade practices.
That's fair and just.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-23 15:49:01
OK Fallon can you explain your shaky theories. You say " Canada speaks to protect the UN but acts to kill it ". How did you come to that conclusion? Canada agreed to support and abide by the UN decision. Canada pays its dues to support the UN.
The USA has not been paying their dues to the UN. The USA circumvented the UN decision and invaded Iraq against the wishes of a majority of the UN.
"The Canadian Health Act ensures the Canadian government can "interfere" with provincial jurisdiction." So??
Do you not believe that our federal government is not right to ensure that all Canadians recieve adequate health care? When they provide funding; it is their responsibility to ensure it is used for the purpose it was given for.
Now your statement "free trade allows parties in agreement to accuse the other of illegal trade practices." Yes, there is a mechanism to address problems but it should not be used frivolously to delay and interrupt trade without just cause.
Just one more question. Are you a Canadian?
I would like to ensure you that I am not "Anti-American; we have had and will again have good relations with the USA. I just do not agree with the direction that the present American leadership is taking.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-24 13:25:48
Fatmomma, I am a Canadian. I just happen to be a Canadian who remembers that the history of the world and our country did not start with the election of Trudeau as our PM.
Now, on to your questions:
1) Canada killed the UN because this was a case where the UN should have acted and it didn't. Canada endorsed this failure, which over time will help to de-legitimize the UN in the minds of democratic thinking people. I'll admit, Canada made efforts more significant than any other of its new allies (Germany, France, China, Russia).
2) On the Canada health act, I was making the point that governments interfere in the jurisdiction of other governments - even within a nation.
I love the Canada Health Act and look forward to the day when all North Americans (US, CANADA, MEXICO) enjoy universal health coverage.
However, this goal is now harder to achieve because we have acted in a way that will discredit all Canadian-specific policies on this continent, the good with the bad.
I don't believe Canada and the shifty public opinion it acts on have done anyone any good in this crisis.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-24 14:21:53
"Canada killed the UN because this was a case where the UN should have acted and it didn't. "
Again, of course, i disagree with your statement because it is false. Inspections for disarmement should have continued... Inspections were working... The inspectors told us so. If Bush wanted a regime change he should have said so from the start, at least to be honest with everyone. And I really, really don't understand how you can write a statement like you did, its beyond me, its like we were not living on the same planet :)...
If you are refering to the Rwanda conflict (I'm sure you're not), i agree Canada partially killed the UN, because they should never have participated in that 'peace-keeping mission', since nobody cared... You know, that Romeo Dallaire said that there were some UN diplomats asking all kinds of statistics on how many deaths there were each day, Romeo asked why they were asking those kinds of questions... You know the answer ? 'The death of one soldier from an industrialized country, is about equal to 1000 deaths of Africans...' So they wanted to know if the increase in soldiers was worth it...), Do you know who blocked more involvement in the Rwanda mission, the US, among others...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-25 13:10:09
The whole problem with "facts" is that we are selective in which facts we use to support our case. This is done on all sides of all debates.
For example, look what you did with Rwanda. you mention that our failure to act was a result of the US (among others) blocking action. But, in other places, you single out Bush (as in, you are anti-Bush).
Being anti-Bush and chiding the US, under Clinton, for not taking action in Rwanda suggests that:
1 - you are not just anti-Bush, but anti-US (for valid reasons).
2 - you think Bush had influence over Clinton and Bush was responsible for this inaction.
See, isolating your comments to Bush and then bringing up the Rwandan catastrophe, distorts the picture of reality somewhat.
Are we on the same planet? I think so.
But then again, it would explain why everywhere I go, the earth is red!:)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-26 04:33:17
I try to be non-biased with my facts as much as possible, thats why I don't believe much of anything i read or hear unless i cross-reference it in several places.
I am mostly against the foreign policies of the great powers, and the US being a superpower, its quite normal that i am opposed more vehemently against their foreign policiy as a whole. When i attack the US government's position in this discussion group, and i bring facts up its because someone is defending their current foregin policy...
I have BIG problems with other powers also, but they don't come in this discussion group, since most people are discussing the Iraq conflict.
If this discussion group start discussing the recent Ivory Coast conflict, I'll be strongly opposed to the position of France, my positions are mostly based on legal facts.
And a proof that I am not anti-US as you seem to state, is that I agree on their attack of Afghanistan, it was legal and quite justified, I was also for the 1991 Gulf War. When Clinton decided to go into Somalia, i also agreed, but it was a fiasco, so from then on, Clinton, like the current US government, only cared about their own interests even if it meant acting unilateraly...
As for Rwanda, its not the US's fault, its EVERYONE's fault, Canada, US, France, the UN and more particularly Belgium... I'm just stating that the US is not without blame here.
The great powers of today should either always be multilateral or completely be isolationist... Not be one or the other when it suits them!!... Thats the current problem with the US, they are both at the same time, which makes no sense! You simply cannot have foreign policy which changes so abruptly...
Reply to this message
|
|
