COncerning the Canada vs US rhetoric

[Lithp]

Hi, First post.

I have been reading several posts and have observed anti US rhetoric by us Canadians. While I agree that the US government is responsible for huge atrocities in the world over the past few decades and spewing hypocracy, let's not forget that it is the US government that is responsible. Not the American people. Most Americans I've met are just like Canadians - reasonable, friendly people.

WAR:
US-
Many citizens of the American public are like any other group of people- gullable. And you know what, so are we as Canadians. Thus many, not all, Americans mistakenly support the war in Iraq and call their troops "heros". Of course we know they are not heros. There is nothing heroic about what they are doing.But can we blame the individual soldiers for being there? They were sent by the gov't. And hey, they're soldiers doing their job.

CA-
Shame on the Canadian gov't. Our military is in a state of decay. It is an international embarrassment. Every aspect of our military is a disgrace with one exception: the people. The men and women of our armed forces do great things with crappy equipment, or great equipment which is in chronic short supply.
Canada was wise to opt out of Iraq and missile defense. Why on earth would we spend huge sums of money on faulty missile technology that doesn't work? The missiles do not work- they do not shoot down other missiles. Oh, and by the way, where would these missiles be shot down? Over Canada or the US? Where would you wnat them shot down?

ECONOMY:
US-
Yes the US economic policies often focus on gain at the expense of others. And they often lose when others grieve their policies at WTO, NAFTA they're doing what they can to promote the interests of the nation.

CA-
Canada's economic policies are sad. We do very little to promote our own interests on the world scene when compared with other countries. Investment in R&D is minimal, immigration policies don't allow experts (from foreign lands) in whatever field to practice their craft. We pay our professionals so poorly they all emigrate to the US and do nothing to keep them or get them back.

Oh and let's not kid ourselves; the US would survive just fine if we stopped all trade with them. We would do just fine if the roles were reversed. But of course, it's in our mutual (although not equal) interest to keep trading.

GOV'T in general:

US, CA -

You gotta play the game. Politics is about deception and perception.Survival. The US gov't spews lies about everything. Ya know, so does ours. They have to.They have to lie to us to conceal the ugly truths that are out there. And we all, US and CA citizens, believe some of the lies we are told or just plain old ignore the fact we are being lied to.

So after this rant what is my point? Not much really. I just want to remind folks... don't hate the citizens of a nation whose gov't you don't approve of. It's not their fault. Bush is an idiot. Everyone knows that. So is Martin. Americans are nice people.So are Canadians.

sorry for rambling

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: COncerning the Canada

And if you read the posts you will find that there is very little criticism of the American people, but of the policies of their government. You will also find criticism of the Canadian government and the actions of other countries.

The charge of anti-American really doesn't stick very well when examined.

 

[mrmom2]

I have nothing against the american people I worry about what is going on dowmn there with the erosion of your bill of rights and constitution .I fear if you lose your rights I will lose mine also .I for one do not want to live in a police state,and I think most americans don't either .the problem is I don't think very many of you are paying atention to what is going on with your goverment.

 

[Lithp]

RE: COncerning the Canada

Thank you for responding. You are both correct, the majority of us have noting against the actual citizens of our neighbours. I guess I have read some hostile posts which give the appearance of animosity.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: COncerning the Canada

There is presently some animosity being caused by a certain American poster who appears to come here to push buttons.

 

[alienofwar]

Great post Lthp, although I must disagree with the missile defense issue because it would of been politically and economically wise to jump on board...in terms of political stratedgy that is, not the ego of Canadians. Also, I have to disagree with you on the war as well.

Other than that, your article was well balanced, thats great to see among the sea of anti-american posts.

 

[missile]

I like Americans ,but dislike Bush and crew. To the Republicans here,that makes me anti-American.Either you're with him or else,a filthy liberal.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: COncerning the Canada

There is presently some animosity being caused by a certain American poster who appears to come here to push buttons.

I am just trying to get my point across. I know you do not like it.

 

[EagleSmack]

I can see how you may think that your post helps mend the rift but it seems condescending at times...

Americans... we're gullable for supporting Iraq. We mistakenly call them "heroes", but WE know they're not.

I was going to pick this apart but I see that your intention was not to flame the US so I will pass.

 

[missile]

The victor of any war writes the histories of that war. Therefore,it'll be interesting to see what is written about the Iraqi conflict in,say,10 years from this date.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: COncerning the Canada vs US rhetoric

The victor of any war writes the histories of that war. Therefore,it'll be interesting to see what is written about the Iraqi conflict in,say,10 years from this date.

That has been true in the past, Missile, but don't you think that global communications capability will be able to off-set some of that one-sided history writing...I would like to think so...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

...but upon further reflection, the truth will be lost in opposing histories...for instance, try doing some web research on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and attempt to determine who is the aggressor, and who is the victim... :?

 

[Wolfgang336]

Despite being Canadian, I'll agree with Eagle. The original post is a tad condescending.

While I agree with our refusal to participate in the Missile Defense duwacky, you should be corrected on one issue:

Why on earth would we spend huge sums of money on faulty missile technology that doesn't work?

I don't believe the US gov't wanted a financial contribution.

Just spreading the word of reality,

Wolf

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: COncerning the Canada

What they were after, at least right away, was political legitimacy in the international community. That is something I am very glad we didn't grant them because it would have brought our name into question in the international community.

There would have almost certainly been costs in the future though, because such a plan would have most certainly required us to provide additional people and likely equipment in the future.

Given our small military budget and the Canadian peoples' wish to become a strong peace-keeping force again, that would have been a problem.

 

[mrmom2]

Not to mention the land they would require for there missles.

 

[Wetcoast40]

Wolfgang:
There is no free lunch! Signing on to the Missle Defence program would have had a cost down the road; economic and political.
I have friends in the US who are both pro and anti Bush. It's interesting to hear their rationalizations on why they feel the way they feel. Often, it's their family history of being "Republican" or "Democrat".
I like Canada being independent; as much as we can claim that posture. I don't like being bullied or told how to act or what to think by someone who doesn't know me and doesn't care to know me. We may not exist politically in the view of most Americans, but it is hard to ignore the second largest country on the planet. I just wish we had someone more forcefull than 'Mr. Dithers' to put forward our position.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: COncerning the Canada vs US rhetoric

Not to mention the land they would require for there missles.

I don't think they wanted land, money, or anything substantial. Having already given them the use of Norad's systems to target incoming missiles, our 'support' would really have been an empty gesture. Isn't that what the Liberal government specializes in? It's funny how Martin tried to insist on a say on missiles flying over Canada after he told the Americans no. Is this guy on crack or what???

 

[mrmom2]

I knew he was on something.Now it all makes sense crack eh! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't think they wanted land, money, or anything substantial.

What they were after in the short term was to use Canada's good name on the international stage to justify the new arms race they've started. Since Canada has been at the forefront of the disarmament movement for a very long time, that was asking an awful lot.

Isn't that what the Liberal government specializes in?

If you had an understanding of diplomacy and how important the signals a country send out are in the international community, you would understand that that the backing of a country like Canada is very important. That's why Georgie was so pissed off when we said no. If it wasn't important he wouldn't have cared, or even asked.

It's funny how Martin tried to insist on a say on missiles flying over Canada after he told the Americans no.

International laws and conventions...signed and promoted by the United States of America...consider the use of airspace for military purposes without permission to be an act of war. Now, why wouldn't the US accede to ask? It isn't like we're going to say, "No, we'd rather see your cities get nuked and then have the fallout blow north." What difference would it make anyway? It's not like your missiles actually work.

Georgie doesn't want to ask because he pissed off that we wouldn't sign onto his little plan. He's a petulant brat.

 

[Walrus]

I don't think they wanted land, money, or anything substantial.

What they were after in the short term was to use Canada's good name on the international stage to justify the new arms race they've started. Since Canada has been at the forefront of the disarmament movement for a very long time, that was asking an awful lot.

Isn't that what the Liberal government specializes in?

If you had an understanding of diplomacy and how important the signals a country send out are in the international community, you would understand that that the backing of a country like Canada is very important. That's why Georgie was so pissed off when we said no. If it wasn't important he wouldn't have cared, or even asked.

It's funny how Martin tried to insist on a say on missiles flying over Canada after he told the Americans no.

International laws and conventions...signed and promoted by the United States of America...consider the use of airspace for military purposes without permission to be an act of war. Now, why wouldn't the US accede to ask? It isn't like we're going to say, "No, we'd rather see your cities get nuked and then have the fallout blow north." What difference would it make anyway? It's not like your missiles actually work.

Georgie doesn't want to ask because he pissed off that we wouldn't sign onto his little plan. He's a petulant brat.

Very astute observations Have you been reading Gwynne Dyer by any chance :?:

28 February 2005

The Secret of Ballistic Missile

By Gwynne Dyer

This week's tempest in a teapot in Canada has been Prime Minister Paul Martin's long-delayed decision not to take part in the US project for ballistic missile defence (BMD). Canada will share radar information about any incoming missile with the United States through the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), but it will not allow anti-missile interceptors on its soil (not that the US wanted to put them there anyway), nor will it have any part in decisions to launch those weapons.

That should have kept everybody happy. The US gets the information it wants, while Canada withholds its formal approval of a weapons initiative that a majority of Canadians (and of Martin's own Liberal Party caucus) think is dangerous and wrong. But US Ambassador Paul Celucci declared that Canada was forfeiting sovereignty over its own airspace by refusing to participate in BMD, Prime Minister Martin replied that "we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission," and the fat was in the fire.

It's all nonsense, of course. Any missile intercepts would take place in space, and sovereignty doesn't extend into space. In any case, intercepts by the BMD system now being deployed in Alaska would happen far out over the Pacific, not above Canadian Territory. And even if Ottawa did sign up for BMD, it could have no meaningful say in an American decision to launch an interceptor. There simply wouldn't be time.

What Washington really wanted from Ottawa (and what Martin was being rebuked for failing to deliver) was Canadian approval of the PRINCIPLE of ballistic missile defence. The United States has been isolated on this issue since the Bush administration tore up the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and Canadian approval would have been useful diplomatically. The controversy will die down in a few days -- but it did rouse former defence minister Paul Hellyer to speak the truth that no other Canadian public figure was willing to utter: "missile defence" is not really about defence.

Writing in the Globe and Mail, Hellyer said bluntly that "BMD...has about as much to do with rogue missiles as the war on Iraq had to do with weapons of mass destruction." The notion that North Korea might fire one or two ballistic missiles at the US, even if it had a few long-range missiles and nuclear warheads to put on them, is ludicrous. The entire leadership and most of the country would instantly be destroyed by a massive US retaliation. Pyongyang is a very nasty regime, but it hasn't attacked anybody in the past fifty years, it isn't suicidal, and it can be deterred by the threat of retaliation just like Russia or China.. So what is BMD really about?

BMD first emerged in the 1980s as President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" proposal. He was genuinely horrified by the idea of a nuclear war, and it was sold to him as a project that could save Americans from a Soviet missile attack. Reagan even wanted to give the BMD technology to the Soviet Union, too, so that they could jointly eradicate the danger of a nuclear exchange, but that's not what the people who sold him the project really had in mind.

In practice, any system designed to destroy incoming ballistic missiles that depends on ground-based interceptors can easily be overwhelmed just by building more missiles. The cost to the Soviet Union of building more ICBMs would always have been far less than the cost of the interceptors needed to shoot them down and their supporting systems, so the Soviet Union could always have saturated US defences in an all-out attack. But what if it were the victim of a US surprise attack that destroyed most of its missiles on the ground? THEN a good American BMD system might be able to deal with the ragged retaliation that was all the Soviets could manage.

Such a BMD system is not yet a technological reality even now, twenty years later, but that's what it was always about: giving the United States the ability to launch a first strike against the Soviet Union and to survive the inevitable retaliation with "acceptable" losses. It seemed less urgent when the Soviet Union collapsed, but it was never abandoned -- and in the later 90s the neo-conservatives revived it as part of a scheme for establishing permanent US military dominance over the planet.

Paul Hellyer quoted their own document, published by the Project for a New American Century in late 2000: "Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defences is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence. Unrestricted use of space has become a major strategic interest of the United States." By "layered" they meant not just ground-based interceptors, but space-based systems that can also destroy space stations and surveillance satellites belonging to any rival power. They intend to militarise space, and they still dream of gaining
the ability to carry out nuclear first strikes against other countries with impunity.

The interceptors now going into their silos in Alaska are a
(technologically problematic) down payment on this hyper-ambitious project, but they are intended to establish the principle that America has the right, despite the old ABM treaty and the still extant treaty banning the militarisation of space, to go down this road. That was why Canadian agreement to participate in BMD defence, even symbolically, was desirable to Washington. And it is why Canadians refused (though they were wise not to say so officially).

http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne Dyer article_ Canada and BMD.txt