Why The US Doesn't Respect us

[pryvateer]

Tawasakm, this isn't my position, it is the thinking/position of the Bush administration. I don't agree with all of it but also understand that the peace process supported by Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton was a failure. There was going to be no peace and I found the change of thinking in Washington refreshing. At least they were willing to be politically incorrect and act with some intellectual honesty. History will decide how smart it was.

[Black Dog]

No we dont, and do you 'fear' the USA? I dont, I respect them. How often do you hear about Canada in a respectful light? By people that matter? Not nearly so much as the US.

International regard for the U.S. is at an all time low (and I happen to consider the billions of people who aren't statesmen or pundits to be the "people who matter"). Yes many people still buy into the ideal of the "American dream", yet many more are starting to see beyond the gloss and glitz and into the true heart of an America that has grown ever more corrupt, inward-looking, arrogant and greedy.

Is that the kind of country we want Canada to be? Is that how we want to be viewed.

It seems many here equate "respect" and "influnece" with our willingness and ability to project military power to maintain western political-economic dominance. Canada started its existence as an imperial vassal. I find it odd that there are those who would return to those days, albeit under a new master, out of some childish, immature need for status.

[Black Dog]

Also, pryvateer, if you believe the U.S. or Israel are truly interested in peace in the Mid East, then you are dreadfully naive.

[pryvateer]

And I'll counter that if you believe that the Arab's will accept anything else than total annihilation of the jews, calling you naive is inadequate.

PS - US and Isreal want peace on their terms and will get it, besides war is bad for business

[Black Dog]

And I'll counter that if you believe that the Arab's will accept anything else than total annihilation of the jews, calling you naive is inadequate.

I'll call this as I see it right off the bat: you're an idiot. "The Arabs" are by no means a homogenous monolith. to ascribe a singular motivaton to such a diverse set of nationalities, cultures and interests is ridiculous.

PS - US and Isreal want peace on their terms and will get it, besides war is bad for business

War is certainly not bad for business, as the booming U.S. arms trade can attest. Furthermore, the fact is as long as the U.S. and Israel push for peace "on their terms" (terms unacceptable to the rest of the region), then the future will be on eof neverending war, strife and instability.

[The Terrible Sweal]

As for respect, it's earned not given. Do we really deserve their respect to any great extent?

Do we want the respect of America as it is today under its current administration?

[pryvateer]

Black Dog, first of all resorting to negative epithets is the sign of not having a convincing argument. On the issue of Arabs, support your position by telling me how many data sources did you use for that statement? I read or at least puruse most of the english language dailies published in wonderfully democratic places like Cairo, Amman, Demascus, etc. to know the enimty directed at Isreal. Their children are taught to hate jews and Isreali's - how do you negotiate a deal based upon honoring your oppponents position?

Now for the bait. You need to take a deep breath and research your emotional outbursts. I put the 'war is bad for business" comment in there to test your economic acumen.

War is bad for business for a number of reasons but lets keep this simple - valuable resources used to produce war materials are a waste - the only way to draw value from them is either as a deterrent kept in inventory or used in combat that will cost billions of dollars. Compare that to resources spent on producing food or shelter or transportation, or creating more jobs that produce things of value.

[pryvateer]

The Terrible Sweal - great question. I believe Canada would want the respect of the United States. There are many reasons related to shared heritage, culture, border, economic activity, etc.

I think it is easy to obtain. The United States doesn't expect a lackey or lap dog as a partner. Canada is a sovereign nation and has a right to go it's own way. Where Canada gets side ways with the US is when you take the natural conflict we have and make it public, and then side with countires that are not our friends or allies like France.

What gets us annoyed is when we are doing the hard and dirty work that most of North America and Europe will benefit from, our so called friends feel compelled to thrust a sharp stick in our eye.

Canada must know, as does the British, the Germans, the Italians, and yes the French - they can count on us when in need - so why all the glee from abusing our good nature?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Quick history: in response to the Olso Accords in the early 1990's, a number of American policy makers came to the conclusion that no peace between Isreal and the Palestinians was possible given the status quo. So an alternative strategy was developed to shut down terrorist organizations by denying them safe haven in supportive countries.

The validity of that response depends in large part on which element(s) of the status quo were the real barrier to progress. In particular it seems questionable whether the activities of violent criminal groups (however heinous) was the real or most important impediment, given the intrasigence of Israel in regard to its illegal occupation of the Palestinians.

When the Republicans came back into power and it was obvious that no peace was possible with Arafat

Obvious to whom? Regardless of how much or little one likes Arafat, it remains the fact that no acceptable peace has ever been tendered to the Palestinians.

, this strategy was being dusted off and reviewed as a potential path to peace.

But that's an absurd idea.

After 911, this strategy became US policy with the only question being where to start. Afghanistan was obvious place to start and for a multitude of reasons

So are you suggesting that the U.S. invaded Aghanistan not because the Taliban regime harboured the 9/11 perpetrating Al Quada, but rather as a means of resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict? That would be strange for two reasons: First, it would mean that the U.S. government was disingenuous about its reasons for invading another country -- Shurely unheard of. Second, it seems like a bizarrely circuitous course to take if that is the objective -- Afghanistan is far from Israel, and Al Queada was not active in targetting Israel.

... Imagine the result: Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran, and Iraq neutralized.

But none of which would appear likely to resolve the Israel-Palestine problem!

... this change along with a new Palestinian leader will enable a real peace deal with the Isreali's.

But isn't it necessary that Israel be willing to reach a "real peace deal" too? I don't see any part of the strategy that will induce that.

[Tawasakm]

Canada must know, as does the British, the Germans, the Italians, and yes the French - they can count on us when in need

You could include Australia in that. I am of the opinion that is either alot or most of the reason that Australia contributed to Iraq. The mutual defence treaty provides powerful protection for Australia. I think that Howard felt obligated to assist the US because of this. Apart from the fact that he appears to agree with Bush's rationale. I think Howard believes very strongly in mutual obligation - in any situation involving conflict and affecting the national security of either nation.

Interesting to note, however, that there were no US military personnel in East Timor. From memory the comment at the time was something along the lines of, "We are confident the Aussies can handle it." Which, in retrospect, may well be a fair assessment.

[Black Dog]

On the issue of Arabs, support your position by telling me how many data sources did you use for that statement? I read or at least puruse most of the english language dailies published in wonderfully democratic places like Cairo, Amman, Demascus, etc. to know the enimty directed at Isreal. Their children are taught to hate jews and Isreali's - how do you negotiate a deal based upon honoring your oppponents position?

I have no doubt you are an avid reader of MEMRI's propaganda. The Arabic press serves 300 million people, so some content is bound to be extreme, just as one can find extreme, racist content in the Hebrew Israeli press, or on Fox News, for that matter.'

War is bad for business for a number of reasons but lets keep this simple - valuable resources used to produce war materials are a waste - the only way to draw value from them is either as a deterrent kept in inventory or used in combat that will cost billions of dollars. Compare that to resources spent on producing food or shelter or transportation, or creating more jobs that produce things of value.

But that doesn't support your statement in the slightest. From the perspective of the Halliburtons, Lockheed Martins, Rayethons, and General Electrics of the world (that is, those whose business is war), war is certainly a Good Thing. And while the impact of military spending is detrimental to the larger economy in that money spent on things like weapons systems or, say, permenant military bases on foreign soil, is money that is not going to social services.

Your confusion, it seems, stems from a old-fashioned belief that the U.S. government and its accomplices in the private sector are genuinely interested in peaceful use of resources and are reluctant paricipants in the struggle for military supremacy (a "struggle" in which the U.S. outspend outspends all of its adversaries or potential adversaries combined, as well as all its allies). That is not the case. Those who reap the benefits of war and pay very little of the costs are now the ones crafting policy. I ANd it's unlikely they have much interest in tampering with a system that works so well for them.

[pryvateer]

The Terrible Sweal, Ok here it goes

1. Baruak offered Arafat the deal of a life time. The only way the Palestinians could get a better deal was by a total military defeat of Isreal. That being the case why was the deal turned down? Three potential answers; Arafat never intended to negotiate; Arafat was too stupid to realize he had achieved 95%; or he would be dead within hours ala Sadat.

The think tank that wrote the original paper took door number three and hypothesized that as long as Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. were powerful forces in the Arab world - no Arab leader could close the deal and survive.

The definition of status quo was having both Arafat in power and powerful terrorist organizations with reach into Palenstinian territory.

Yes you can play the occupation tune concerning the origin's of Isreal and that was one area where the Isreali position is weak but after the holocaust jews everywhere learned that no christian or moslem was ever going to protect them - they had to have their own country. As for why there, why not - it was their original land. How would you feel if Native Americans made a play to get more their land back from the European invaders?

2. As for comment of an absurd idea - I'm just reporting, it is fact no matter how absurd it might sound.

3. Your best comment is Afganistan. No it wasn't the reason we went there first, it was a direct response to 911 however ending the Taliban's rule is hardly a strategy. We needed a coherent way of looking at the problem and developing solutions. Again my comment wasn't intended to draw your applause, it was to state to the best of my ability what is really going on. The US intends to deny sanctuary for terrorist organizations as well as the sources of non-conventional weapons. Terrorist groups can only buy or steal, they lack the ability to build a highly complex industry from the ground up and go unnoticed.

As for comment of being disingenous - isn't that true of all governments? Besides my previously stated information is public knowledge so what disingenuous? We told the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they did and there is no record (or evidence) of its destruction. So in that sense we failed - Sadam's arsenal has been disbursed.

4. The Isreali's will negotiate a peace deal when they have somebody to negotiate with, and have evidence their territory is safe.

[HalfCanuckistani]

It is too bad that you Canadians and us Americans (myself being half and half, Mom's from Lethbridge) are at such odds. I don't really understand your viciousness against us. When your leaders come to America they are not scorned and insulted. When Canadian tourists come here they are not harrassed or intimidated.

We were attacked on 9/11 and as a matter of fact several times before that as well. Bush, unlike his weak predecessor, decided to fight back with force and zero forgiveness. He invaded Iraq because it was a known terror haven (somewhat like Canauckistan is today). We will attack every nation on Earth that threatens us (you might want to watch your raghead population or you might just be next). We really don't need your help Canadians. You have ZERO military capability anyway, so why should we need it?

America has always been the defender of freedom and Canada has always hitched a free ride, hiding behind American muscle and resolve. That's OK Canuckistanis, it's what we do, just stay the hell out of our way!

[The Terrible Sweal]

The United States doesn't expect a lackey or lap dog as a partner. Canada is a sovereign nation and has a right to go it's own way. Where Canada gets side ways with the US is when you take the natural conflict we have and make it public, and then side with countires that are not our friends or aliies like France.

There seems to be a contradiction there. If Canada looks at a situation and decides that France is correct and the U.S. wrong, would it not be the behaviour of a lackey to nevertheless side with the U.S.?

What gets us annoyed is when we are doing the hard and dirty work that most of North America and Europe will benefit from, our so called friends feel compelled to thrust a sharp stick in our eye.

There are two aspects to that statement:

(1) the impulse; and

(2) the underlying facts which trigger the impulse.

The first is understandable, even rational.

Unfortunately, the second (i.e. the facts as presented in your paragraph), are not entirely correct, or not fully inclusive. When you say 'doing the hard and dirty work', you seem to presume that it is the right work or valuable work. I would suggest that there are SOME instances where U.S. foreign policy may be hard and may be dirty, but the work is not right or valuable. The example of the moment is Iraq, but history offers examples from Chile to Vietnam. (Also, from the point of view of Canada, we have been there in a lot of the cases we thought were right or valuable, and have given you a pass on a lot of cases where we thought you were wrong.) I also think it is a vast over-reaction to equate disagreement with 'poking a stick'.

Canada must know, as does the British, the Germans, the Italians, and yes the French - they can count on us when in need - so why all the glee from abusing our good nature?

You can count on us when in need. (I make no representations for France). You cannot count on us to let you unnecessarily undermine international rules and shoot yourselves in the foot.

[Newfie Canadian]

I don't really understand your viciousness against us.

I suspect the average Canadian doesn't hold ill will towards Americans, but the current administration.

When your leaders come to America they are not scorned and insulted.

Given the opportunity, I would guess a majority of Americans don't even know the name of our PM, let alone have a reason to scorn or insult him.

When Canadian tourists come here they are not harrassed or intimidated.

I assume you're implying that American tourists are harrassed her. I doubt that to be true on a wide scale.

you might want to watch your raghead population or you might just be next

That's ignorant.

We really don't need your help Canadians.

You keep on thinking that.

[Black Dog]

Baruak offered Arafat the deal of a life time. The only way the Palestinians could get a better deal was by a total military defeat of Isreal. That being the case why was the deal turned down? Three potential answers; Arafat never intended to negotiate; Arafat was too stupid to realize he had achieved 95%; or he would be dead within hours ala Sadat.

Of course, the "95 per cent" story is a lie. At no time did israel offer anthing mor ethan Israel never offered more than 88 percent, which in itself is dingeuous. Under Barak's offer, the Palestinian state on the West Bank was to consist of three chunks of territory, linked by land corridors, with control of these corridors, as well as of external borders, remaining in Israeli hands (thus keeping the Palestinian populace under the control of an occupying power on a day-to-day basis); 10 percent of the West Bank was to be annexed by Israel to accommodate its settlements, in exchange for which the Palestinians were to be compensated with a strip of desert; another 10-12 percent, comprising the Jordan Basin, would be leased to Israel for 100 years. Nor was Israel prepared to address the refugee problem or consider the status of East Jerusalem.

Yes you can play the occupation tune concerning the origin's of Isreal and that was one area where the Isreali position is weak but after the holocaust jews everywhere learned that no christian or moslem was ever going to protect them - they had to have their own country. As for why there, why not - it was their original land.

I don't beleive past injustices committed upon one party is a license for that party to perpetuate injustice.

How would you feel if Native Americans made a play to get more their land back from the European invaders?

I would love to see some measure og justice brought to th epeople whose land our ancestors stole, who were driven to the brink of extinction and, to this day, are treated as second class citizens in a nation that has consistently failed to honour its commitments. Candad's treatment of its Natives is a dark stain on our history, just as the Occupation will be a blemish on Israel.

The US intends to deny sanctuary for terrorist organizations as well as the sources of non-conventional weapons. Terrorist groups can only buy or steal, they lack the ability to build a highly complex industry from the ground up and go unnoticed.

Yet Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of the largest sponsors of terrorism, have largely escaped America's wrath. Why?

We told the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they did and there is no record (or evidence) of its destruction

Wrong. There is no evidence Iraq had any WMD, or the cpacity to make them, only the vague desire to do so.

The Isreali's will negotiate a peace deal when they have somebody to negotiate with, and have evidence their territory is safe.

Wrong again. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass told Haaretz that the purpose of the recent "disengagement" was to "freeze" the peace process. Weisglass said (and I quote): "And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda."

you might want to watch your raghead population or you might just be next). 

There's no place for such filth on this board. I'll see you banned.

[The Terrible Sweal]

1. Baruak offered Arafat the deal of a life time. The only way the Palestinians could get a better deal was by a total military defeat of Isreal. That being the case why was the deal turned down? Three potential answers; Arafat never intended to negotiate; Arafat was too stupid to realize he had achieved 95%; or he would be dead within hours ala Sadat.

Thanks for your reply. I disagree with you about the offer. I remember reading it at the time and thinking it was frankly absurd. Israel wanted to keep land it had annexed. It insisted that Palestine be prohibited from having military forces. It did not accomodate the Right of Return, or any equitable substitute. This to me fully explains why the deal was turned down.

Yes you can play the occupation tune concerning the origin's of Isreal and that was one area where the Isreali position is weak but after the holocaust jews everywhere learned that no christian or moslem was ever going to protect them - they had to have their own country.

That doesn't alleviate the wrongness of the Occupation.

As for why there, why not - it was their original land. How would you feel if Native Americans made a play to get more their land back from the European invaders?

Israel exists today and is a nation comprising a distinct people. Therefore, today eradicating Israel would be a crime against human rights.

However, the historical 'claim' to Israel doesn't stand up. The states responsible for the diasporas of the Jewish people were Babylon and Rome. They don't exist anymore. The people living there hundreds of years later did not eject the Jews, they just lived there.

3. Your best comment is Afganistan. No it wasn't the reason we went there first, it was a direct response to 911 however ending the Taliban's rule is hardly a strategy.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Was invading Afghanistan:

-response to 9/11 by going after Al Queada and the Taliban; or

-part of a Mid-East agenda; or

-both; or

-neither?

We told the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they did ...

But they didn't. Wasn't there a congressional investigation about that?

4. The Isreali's will negotiate a peace deal when they have somebody to negotiate with, and have evidence their territory is safe.

There's a few problems with that. First, they had someone to negotiate with, they just couldn't reach an agreement. Second, their territory is safe. Israel has nuclear weapons and the support of the greatest power the world has ever known. They are not in strategic danger.

[Argus]

Everyone else in the world respected us more than the US for sure. I'm totally sure of that.

How do you know? And how do you define "respect"?

If the president of, I dunno, Botswana gets two phone calls at the same time, one from Martin and one from Bush, who do you think he'll talk to and who do you think he'll put on hold?

If there is a dispute or disagreement among nations, whose opnion do you think counts for more, ours or theirs?

Why would you think nations would respect us, more than, say Iceland?

[Argus]

Where do you get the idea the rest of the world "respects" the USA. They may "FEAR" the USA but respect no way. Canada get much more respect and deservedly so.

And just why do you imagine the world respects us? Let me guess - Because of our great contribution to peacekeeping? Guess what? We're about the thirtieth most important country in terms of peacekeeping contributions. So what? Foreign aid and development? That has dropped from about .58% of our gdp to something like .23% of gdp over the last twenty years. Many, many nations give more in absolute terms (like the Americans) and more proportionately (like the Americans). Soooo, the world respect us, and rightly so, for uh.... what was it again? We tend to waffle a lot in the UN and abstain from votes. Is that it? We embrace human rights very righteously, uh, unless the nation in question is one we're heavily invested in, then we pretend there's nothing wrong (ie, China, Indonesia). So what was the reason for this respect again?

[Argus]

I use this forum and Canadian sources to learn about Candian opinions/positions. It very rarely crops up in the media here. I don't know how things are in the rest of the world but, sadly, in Australia Canada's position is not known or considered.

So, we don't know or really care too much about Australia's position

Uh, you're speaking for yourself, Caesar, and you haven't struck me as someone who is much familiar with what's going on in the world. I respect Australia. They've become quite a little source of strength over the past some years. A lot of Canadians like to brag about our peacekeeping, for example. You should compare what Australia's done over the past few years in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. Australia has become a regional power broker and a nation to whom others turn to with respect. Canada? It talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

[Argus]

I won't waste my time with Argus or Stoker. Been there done that. These are a bunch of Albertan and/or Quebec separtist closed minded people. MY comments are from a consensus of many sources;

Right, most of them lunatics and fruit-loops.

[Argus]

And I'll counter that if you believe that the Arab's will accept anything else than total annihilation of the jews, calling you naive is inadequate.

I'll call this as I see it right off the bat: you're an idiot. "The Arabs" are by no means a homogenous monolith. to ascribe a singular motivaton to such a diverse set of nationalities, cultures and interests is ridiculous.

And Black Dog knows sooo very much about Arab culture and aspirations, Arab history and motivation. No doubt he will treat us to a comparison of the differences between the people and cultures of say, Syria and those of Lebanon and Egypt.

[Argus]

As for respect, it's earned not given. Do we really deserve their respect to any great extent?

Do we want the respect of America as it is today under its current administration?

Uhm, yes.

[Argus]

I have no doubt you are an avid reader of MEMRI's propaganda. The Arabic press serves 300 million people, so some content is bound to be extreme, just as one can find extreme, racist content in the Hebrew Israeli press, or on Fox News, for that matter.'

Horse shit. First of all, MEMRI has never been found to have lied about the translations it makes of Arabic hate speech and literature. Second, that vast Arab press you're talking about? It's all government controlled. EVERY SINGLE RADIO STATION, TV STATION, AND NEWSPAPER. There is no free press anywhere in the Arab world. The closest you can find is, uh, in Iraq. So when you see hate literature directed at Jews or Christians what you are seeing is official, government approved hate literature, and you are most unlikely to find it anywhere in the mainstream in the US or Israel. We're not talking about little internet web sites or free handout sheets, but major daily newspapers and national network television.

[Argus]

It is too bad that you Canadians and us Americans (myself being half and half, Mom's from Lethbridge) are at such odds. I don't really understand your viciousness against us.

What viciousness? What you're seeing here are some flakes from the far left. They're hardly representative of Canadians in general. There are probably eight million people between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, and how many could all the loony left groups muster to protest against George Bush? A measly five or six thousand people. There were ten times as many on the streets of Ottawa a month earlier during a labour dispute.