Why Is Canada/us Relations So Bad?

[Pellaken]

here's why.

its not just because the US thinks they are better then everyone else (including canada)

but because canada thinks its better then the US

[Seveneighty]

Uh okay.

Way to dissect the issue.

You do know that "Canada" doesn't have an opinion of its own, right? While your buddy Billy Bob may think his country is better than America, its kind of hard to put words into an entire nation's hypothetical yapper.

[SirRiff]

we are better then the US on some issues.

but on the ones that the US is better at: nationalism and military spending. they are double edged swords, but i think a little bit more of both would serve canada well right now.

but socially we are ahead of US policies.

sirriff

[Hugo]

socially we are ahead of US policies.

That is a highly subjective judgement, while the value of a powerful military is an objective one.

[Black Dog]

That is a highly subjective judgement, while the value of a powerful military is an objective one.

Oh really? How so? 'cause it sure sounds like an opinion to me.

[Hugo]

Assuming that the military budget is within the means of the nation to pay (which, in the case of the US, it is), what is the downside to a powerful military? How many people believe that a powerful military is a liability to a nation? How many times in history has a nation been defeated because it had a powerful military, and how many times has one been victorious because it had a weak military?

To state that a powerful military is better for a nation is as objective a statement as, "to have $2 is better than to have $1." And if you disagree, I'll be happy to give you my PayPal details and you can transfer some of your "liability" onto me.

[Black Dog]

Assuming that the military budget is within the means of the nation to pay (which, in the case of the US, it is), what is the downside to a powerful military? How many people believe that a powerful military is a liability to a nation? How many times in history has a nation been defeated because it had a powerful military, and how many times has one been victorious because it had a weak military?

It's interesting that you point out the U.S., as that nation is a perfect example of why a large, powerful military is a bad thing. Aside from guzzling trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds each year, the U.S.'s bloated military has become a powerful political force, one that has far outstripped the civilian checks placed on it by the founding fathers who were extremely leery of having a standing army. Indeed, Eisenhower's prediction of the rise of the military-industrial complex has come to pass. The Pentagon (budget), Congress (campaign contributions) and industry (lucrative contracts) have vested interest in maintaing a huge military, none of which have much to do with protecting the American people.

Of course there are countless other examples across the globe of how powerful armed forces pose a direct threat to democracy. After all, how often do we hear the term "military coup"?

[Hugo]

I could argue this further, but you raise good points. I think the military can only be a threat to democracy if the political system allows it to be, and note too that where juntas occur the military is hardly "strong". However, I'm willing to concede, and say in conclusion that both of SirRiff's points were highly subjective. Do you concur?

[Black Dog]

but on the ones that the US is better at: nationalism and military spending. they are double edged swords, but i think a little bit more of both would serve canada well right now.

but socially we are ahead of US policies.

However, I'm willing to concede, and say in conclusion that both of SirRiff's points were highly subjective. Do you concur?

Oh, absolutely. Indeed, 99.9% of what we read here is opinion.

Interestingly enough, here's an interesting article on DARPA.

[Hugo]

Interestingly enough, here's an interesting article on DARPA.

Very interesting. Here's an interesting article on the USSR, and here's one on the PRC, two regimes that DARPA helped keep you safe from.

Otherwise, you might have joined the 41 million people that the USSR murdered, or the 35 millions that the Chinese Communists murdered. Let's not forget that both were highly aggressive and militarised powers with a history of aggression, invasion and annexation of other nations.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty glad that the US had/has such a strong military. It stops me getting a bullet in the back of the head.

[Black Dog]

Otherwise, you might have joined the 41 million people that the USSR murdered, or the 35 millions that the Chinese Communists murdered. Let's not forget that both were highly aggressive and militarised powers with a history of aggression, invasion and annexation of other nations.

Hardly an endorsement of the perks of a strong military.

[Hugo]

True. But the fact that the US military protected you from it is testament to the fact that it's a subjective point, no?

[Black Dog]

But the fact that the US military protected you from it is testament to the fact that it's a subjective point, no?

Sure, just as there are millions of dead Vietnamese, Cambodians, Iraqis etc who would testify to the evils of the US military if they could. Subjective indeed.

[Hugo]

Sure, just as there are millions of dead Vietnamese, Cambodians, Iraqis

Oh - you mean the 1 million Vietnamese that were murdered by the Communists? Or the 2 million Cambodians that were murdered by the Communists? Or the 300,000-1,000,000 Iraqis murdered by Saddam Hussein? I think these people would testify that they wished to heaven that the US military had been a little more successful or "belligerent" overseas.

But please, tell me how the US military butchered more than a million civilians in Vietnam, more than 2 million in Cambodia, and more than 300,000 in Iraq. I can't find any figures that support this idea at all. For instance, the highest figure I found for civilians killed in the Vietnam War was 200,000 - and that was killed by both sides, not just the South and the USA.

[Black Dog]

Oh - you mean the 1 million Vietnamese that were murdered by the Communists? Or the 2 million Cambodians that were murdered by the Communists? Or the 300,000-1,000,000 Iraqis murdered by Saddam Hussein? I think these people would testify that they wished to heaven that the US military had been a little more successful or "belligerent" overseas.

But please, tell me how the US military butchered more than a million civilians in Vietnam, more than 2 million in Cambodia, and more than 300,000 in Iraq. I can't find any figures that support this idea at all. For instance, the highest figure I found for civilians killed in the Vietnam War was 200,000 - and that was killed by both sides, not just the South and the USA.

The illegal bombing of Cambodia and Laos claimed an estimated 950,000 civilian casualties and ushered in the era of Khmer Rouge (who were later overthrown by the Vietnemese Communists). Civilian casualties in the Vietnam war are estimated at between 587,000 and one million. The war against Iraq in 1991 killed 200,000 people and the subsequent economic sanctions spelled death for some 350,000 to 500,000 children and helped bolster Saddam's regime. Current civilian casualty figures in Iraq have topped 10,000. The bombing of Afghanistan cost an additional 3500+ civilian deaths.

Then there's the secret operations, like the United States supported and arming of government death squads in El Salvador's civil war from 1980 to 1992, which left 75,000 people dead. the support of Suharto in Indonesia, who's invasion of East Timor cost more than 200,000 lives and so on and so on....

Now I'll await the inevitable rebuttal that all those dead people would have been even really dead under the Communists/Saddam, etc.

[Hugo]

What would you have done? Sat back and done nothing as Saddam butchered his own people and annexed his neighbours in order to butcher them too? Wring your hands and wax about the evils of war while the Communists took over Vietnam and proceeded to put a million people to death? Were you preaching soft diplomacy and brotherly love while Soviet tanks crushed Czech and Hungarian protesters to a pulp?

I'm asking you: what is the better solution? What great new idea have you come up with that could have avoided all these deaths while still ending, or realistically attempting to end, the evil regimes those deaths were incurred fighting?

[Black Dog]

What would you have done? Sat back and done nothing as Saddam butchered his own people and annexed his neighbours in order to butcher them too? Wring your hands and wax about the evils of war while the Communists took over Vietnam and proceeded to put a million people to death? Were you preaching soft diplomacy and brotherly love while Soviet tanks crushed Czech and Hungarian protesters to a pulp?

My point is the U.S did "sit back" and let Saddam butcher his people (hell, they helped him do it). Under the guise of fighting Communism, they supported governments in ElSalvador, Niciragua and Chile that murdered tens of thousands and committed untold atrocities. They stood idly by while the Soviets did their worst, anmd continue to allow China's ongoing record of brutal human rights vilolations go unremarked as long as the cheap consumer goods keep coming.

What about the evil regimes the U.S. and the west supported? Do they get a free pass in your book, for I see no denuciation of the realpolitik that drives the U.S.A's foreign policy? Are you naive enough to belive Washington's rhetoric about supporting human rights, freedom and democracy, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary?

I'm asking you: what is the better solution? What great new idea have you come up with that could have avoided all these deaths while still ending, or realistically attempting to end, the evil regimes those deaths were incurred fighting?

How does one so callously assign a value to human life so as to be able to say "we killed a million, but they might have killed two million, so we are justified?"

I will not answer your question as I refuse to accept your framing in terms of good and evil. "Evil" is jusged by its actions. Was Tiger Force, the elite American unit that slaughtered hundreds of old men, women and children during Vietnam, a force for good merely by virtue of not being the communists?

[Hugo]

My question does not ask anything of good and evil. It simply asks what course of action you would have preferred to war in order to realistically attempt to end regimes that killed their own people and sought to kill the people of other lands. Do you want to answer that now, or is there another dodge in your future?

Now, what was that you were saying - that you are disappointed that America did sit back sometimes? They just can't win with you, can they? If they go in, they're evil. If they stay out, they're evil. So my question #2 is: can you get past your own bigotry?

[Black Dog]

My question does not ask anything of good and evil. It simply asks what course of action you would have preferred to war in order to realistically attempt to end regimes that killed their own people and sought to kill the people of other lands. Do you want to answer that now, or is there another dodge in your future?

I don't know. But the idea that the countless lives lost in the service of protecting America's interests abroad was somehow inevitable is unfathomable, as is the notion that its the west's job top sheperhed the poor dark-skinned people's of the globe into a brighter future by any means necessary.

Can you even acknowledge the crimes the U.S has perpertrated? The glaring disconnect between its stated aims and the actual course of action it takes and means employed to get there? Can you do even that?

Now, what was that you were saying - that you are disappointed that America did sit back sometimes? They just can't win with you, can they? If they go in, they're evil. If they stay out, they're evil. So my question #2 is: can you get past your own bigotry?

A total simplification and misrepresentation of the criticisms of U.S. foreign policy.

[Hugo]

This debate was started in a rather ad-hoc fashion and I believe it's getting very disjointed because of it, so I will try to clarify my views on this issue and we can go from there.

The USA is, as a rule but not without exception, a culture of freedom, liberty and democracy. The enemies of the USA are, as a rule but not without exception, undemocratic and unlibertarian, and that's being very kind to most of them.

I do not applaud the poor judgements or egregious actions of the USA, and there are many. For instance, FDR's kowtowing to the USSR resulting in the mass executions of tens of thousands of Polish prisoners that could have been avoided, or Clinton's sale of all information on the US nuclear arsenal to the Chinese or his ineffectual just-for-show meddling in Somalia and Kosovo.

The difference is that these tend to be exceptions in a nation that normally gives billions of dollars in foreign aid each year and attempts to help its allies against various inhuman threats. On the other hand, the enemies of the USA are consistently egregious. It was the rule that the USSR would torture and execute their own citizens on a regular basis and seek to overthrow all foreign governments whether democratic or not whenever they were not Moscow-centrist communist dictatorships. There were no exceptions.

I find war abhorrent and wish an end to it. Unfortunately, until everyone else in the world feels the same way we are doomed to war. The least we can hope for is that the wars we pick will be just and fought for the right reasons. I recognise that war is not always the answer. Reagan was able to shrewdly topple the Soviet Union by the mere threat of economic collapse and the possibility of military defeat. This doesn't always work. Twelve years of economic sanctions and an actual military defeat did not stop Saddam from massacring his own people. Where a military operation is the only viable solution to the problems of tyranny and oppression, we should try not to shirk that in favour of half-measures that will cost even more innocent lives.

[Black Dog]

The difference is that these tend to be exceptions in a nation that normally gives billions of dollars in foreign aid each year and attempts to help its allies against various inhuman threats. On the other hand, the enemies of the USA are consistently egregious. It was the rule that the USSR would torture and execute their own citizens on a regular basis and seek to overthrow all foreign governments whether democratic or not whenever they were not Moscow-centrist communist dictatorships. There were no exceptions.

The problem here is viewing atrocities committed by or abedtted by the U.S. and its western allies as mistakes or lapses of "judgement", rather than calculated foreign policy decisions based on a idealogically-based realpolitik. Those billions of dollars of foreign aid (which includes the thriving arms trade with nations like Israel) always comes with strings attached.

The current situation in Haiti is a prime example of the U.S.'s agenda, where a democratically elected government was overthrown with the tacit (and possible material) support of the current administration.

I ndeed, the U.S.'s appalling record shows that, as much as it likes to cloak itself in the trappings of "freedom, liberty and democracy", its primary concern is maintaining political, economic and military dominance, even if that means trampling on those very principles.

[Hugo]

The great struggles for freedom, democracy and liberty in this century against the twin evils of fascism (in which, forgive me, I am going to lump both Japanese militarism and Islamic fascism) and communism could not have been won without the USA. Without America, WWII would have been lost and the Cold War would have been lost.

To my mind, that means that in the big picture America is a defender of freedom, liberty and democracy. Sometimes it lapses. There have been periods such as the Nixon presidency when foul ethics were allowed to pollute American foreign policy, and in this case America really ceased to be a bastion of democracy and liberty for this certainly was not what it encouraged overseas. The best that can be said about the USA during these periods was that it was a bastion of anti-communism but in many cases, her allies were little better than the communists. These periods were egregious, those actions were wrong.

There were other times when the USA just exercised poor judgement. Carter probably did not intend that his soft stance on communism would lead to Soviet confidence and the invasion of Afghanistan. Clinton probably did not deliberately commit treason by selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Somalis or Kosovans probably were not at the front of his mind when he made his decisions on US policy regarding those regions. These were mistakes, good intentions with foul consequences.

I don't think the USA can be said to have a primary mission, since the role changes with the administration and the political mood of the populace. Jimmy Carter and Theodore Roosevelt were very different presidents, and American foreign policy was similarly different during their terms. Some presidents were hard-line anticommunists, like Nixon, Kennedy or Reagan, some were not, like Carter or Clinton.

But if you want an overall picture of American foreign policy in this century, and it seems that you do, I believe that that picture is one of American defence of liberty.

[Black Dog]

The great struggles for freedom, democracy and liberty in this century against the twin evils of fascism (in which, forgive me, I am going to lump both Japanese militarism and Islamic fascism) and communism could not have been won without the USA. Without America, WWII would have been lost and the Cold War would have been lost.

That's a pretty sugar coated view of events, considering the U.S.A. had no problem with fascism when it was supporting Franco and trading with Nazi Germany. And the (misnomered) Islamic fascism was fine so long as it checked communism (as in Afghanistan in the 1980's) or ensured a steady flow of oil (as in Saudi Arabia up to thje present).

These were mistakes, good intentions with foul consequences.

Again we have the pervasive, wrongheaded and evil argument that the egregious actions committed by the U.S., directly or by proxy, are mistakes. If that's the case, America is one clumsy, stupid giant. However, that's not the reality. Foreign policy decisions, from supporting Saddam in the '80s against the Iranians to arming central American death squads (as in Colombia today) to overthrowing democratic regimes (as in Chile in '79 and Haiti today) are calculated, deliberate actions with intended consequenses.

I don't think the USA can be said to have a primary mission, since the role changes with the administration and the political mood of the populace.

Wrong. Since it first stepped foot on the world stage, the U.S.'s primary mission is protection of its own national interests, in particular, those of the dominant elite. The rhetoric about democracy and freedom is the smokescreen.

[KrustyKidd]

Wrong. Since it first stepped foot on the world stage, the U.S.'s primary mission is protection of its own national interests,

Know any countries that don't? It seems to me that the US is simply more sucessful at it than others.

[Hugo]

That's a pretty sugar coated view of events, considering the U.S.A. had no problem with fascism when it was supporting Franco and trading with Nazi Germany.

Alright, but as I said, the big picture is that democracy and freedom in this century were saved only because of the USA. Do you recognise that?

Foreign policy decisions... are calculated, deliberate actions with intended consequenses.

Yep. Usually, the intended consequences are to avoid a worse evil. For example, supporting Stalin against Hitler, and turning on him when Hitler was dealt with. For example, supporting Saddam against the Ayatollah, and then turning on the Saddam when the Ayatollah was dealt with. For example, supporting the Mujahedeen against the Soviets, and then turning on the Mujahedeen when the USSR collapsed. The US is quite fluid in picking some allies but steadfast with others (for instance, throughout the 20th Century the US has never turned upon Britain with the one "exception" of the Suez incident, or upon Canada), but the goal is the preservation of democracy. The dynamics of US foreign policy and alliances is geared towards taking on problems and threats to world peace and freedom one at a time with as much backing as one can get, rather than going in guns blazing against the whole world.

Since it first stepped foot on the world stage, the U.S.'s primary mission is protection of its own national interests, in particular, those of the dominant elite.

Dominant elite! Give it a rest! Who is the dominant elite? What are their names? How are they manipulating things? Who is "running" America behind the scenes, eh? The "bourgeois"? I've got news for you, my friend, 90% of Americans are bourgeois. The American political-economic system gives a constant fluid shifting of power and that power never concentrates. That's why the American people have been able to hold on to their freedoms for so long.