Jump to content

Why Is Canada/us Relations So Bad?


Recommended Posts

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.

This is quite true, and frankly, it's the only way to run a country. If you have someone else's interests first, you might be a nice guy, but you sure aren't gonna last very long.

There's nothing wrong with helping others, promoting democracy around the world, giving foreign aid to starving children, or whatever. But those should come second to, and this is the case for any political system, protecting your own interests, feeding your own people, and ensuring your own survival. After these are dealt with, then one can turn to the outside world and say, okay, who can I help today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with helping others, promoting democracy around the world, giving foreign aid to starving children, or whatever. But those should come second to, and this is the case for any political system, protecting your own interests, feeding your own people, and ensuring your own survival. After these are dealt with, then one can turn to the outside world and say, okay, who can I help today?

Okay, but what happens when national interests and , say, promoting democracy collide? As we've seen throughout history, the U.S.A has shown little recitence with stomping all ove rits suppossed principles when its necessary to protect its own interests.

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.

It's not a matter of avoiding a worse evil. Ity's a cynical policy that excuses evil in all forms when there is a short-term benefit to be gained. Thus, the U.S. will be forever locked in a cycle of destroying monsters of its own creation. You have a very pollyanna view of world geopolitics, Hugo. It doesn't take a genius to see that foreign policy is not based on "taking on problems and threats to world peace and freedom" but on protecting economic interests. In that respect, the U.S.A is no different than any other nation. However, it's the idea that the U.S. and its people are somehow special and their motives inherently noble that sticks in my craw.

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.

I never said "bourgeois". That's your construction. The dominant elite is a collusion of interests that include corporations, the media, various state appartus (like the de facto independent Pentagon), special interest lobby groups like the PNAC (Project for the New American century) and individual politicians and bureaucrats. As for your assertion that "The American political-economic system gives a constant fluid shifting of power and that power never concentrates", this is utter bollocks. It's no coincidence the players on the scene seldom change 9look at the volume of high placed Bush admin figures who help past positions with Bush 1, Reagan and back). As well, corporate convergance and mergers has seen wealth and power concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. If anything, power in the States is becoming increasingly static and the public's interests and views, as dramtically demonstrated by the 2000 election debacle, are not represented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we've seen throughout history, the U.S.A has shown little recitence with stomping all ove rits suppossed principles when its necessary to protect its own interests.

Sometimes, not always. Unlike their enemies in the USSR, the PRC, the Taliban and so on, they were not consistently egregious, nor egregious to anything like the same degree as I shall demonstrate.

In that respect, the U.S.A is no different than any other nation. However, it's the idea that the U.S. and its people are somehow special and their motives inherently noble that sticks in my craw.

I think what sticks in your craw is that you owe your freedom and probably your very existence to the USA, and you can't stand this because you hate them for some reason.

Without America gunning for your rights overseas, you might have been added to the list of 150 million people murdered by the enemies of America this century. Do you know what 150 million corpses look like? If you laid them head to toe in a line it would stretch for 150,000 miles. That's 5 times around the equator. Do you seriously expect me to believe that the USA is the equal of these regimes in evil intent and action?

And I'm sure you're about to trot out stories of massacres America has committed and her allies have committed and so forth. Regarding the first, fine, when you can show me the mass graves of forty million American citizens massacred for no good reason I'll concede. Regarding the second, we are looking at picking a lesser evil and also, America is not responsible for the conduct of people she allies with, ultimately.

America is believed to have been indirectly responsible for about 2,000 political murders (e.g. lynching of blacks) since 1900. In the 20th Century, America was responsible for the deaths of around 583,000 people, virtually all of whom were foreigners killed in war. Nazi Germany murdered 21 million people, many of whom were their own citizens. The Soviet Union murdered perhaps 41 million, Communist China 35 million, and so on. Obviously, the idea that America is one of the most violent nations is absolutely stupid. It's not even close. Even in the few years since it's inception and 1987 little Communist Vietnam managed to murder almost three times as many civilians as the USA has done this entire century. That's 1,669,000 people murdered by the North Vietnamese. If you want to know how many the Americans killed in that conflict, it's about 6,000. 6,000 people is very tragic, but it's nothing compared to 1.6m!

Oh, and good old Mr. Allende. Allende was a Marxist, and if there's one rule about Marxists it's that when they get power they invariably start slaughtering people and trampling freedoms. It's as inevitable as night following day. So, when a Marxist got into power in Chile I'm sure the CIA did panic and try to get rid of him by any means possible. I would have. They're jumpy enough about Castro, and with good reason. Castro has put tens of thousands of his own people to death, based Soviet nuclear missiles in his territory and continues to be a sworn enemy of the USA. The last thing we need is more Marxists in South America. Make that anywhere.

The dominant elite is a collusion of interests that include corporations, the media, various state appartus (like the de facto independent Pentagon), special interest lobby groups like the PNAC (Project for the New American century) and individual politicians and bureaucrats.

Right, so like I said, a fluid and ever-changing power balance that assures continued liberty. Corporations cannot ever be considered a united body. The media co-operate about as much as Fox and the New York Times. Lobby groups are as varied as you can get - pro-life, pro-choice, conservative religious, gay-rights, etc. What you have described here is not a conspiracy to seize power but a pack of dogs all pulling in different directions. Unlikely that any one of them could come close to power. This is why America remains free - thank you for making my point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what sticks in your craw is that you owe your freedom and probably your very existence to the USA, and you can't stand this because you hate them for some reason.

Yeah that's right. I hate America. I also hate puppies, apple pie, and Jesus. :rolleyes:

I've made it pretty clear what my issues are with the U.S. and its foreign policy. But if you'd rather just attack a straw man, that's fine.

. Obviously, the idea that America is one of the most violent nations is absolutely stupid.

Despite all your blathering about the atrocities committed by vile regimes in China., the Soviet Union etc, you still miss the point. No where did I say "America is one of the most violent nations". Nor did I say it was the worst offender. I'm simply indicating that the U.S. has consistenetly demonstrated that, despite rhetoric about defending democracy and so forth, it is driven by self-interest above all else. When the two (self-interest vs. freedom and democracy) come into conflict, self-interest inevitably triumphs. That doesn't make the U.S. worse than Hitler or anyone else. It just makes it a nation of hypocrites.

Oh, and good old Mr. Allende. Allende was a Marxist, and if there's one rule about Marxists it's that when they get power they invariably start slaughtering people and trampling freedoms. It's as inevitable as night following day.

So to prevent a hypothetical massacre by a democratically elected leader, the U.S. had to back a very real massacre of thousands of people? How do you sleep at night?

Right, so like I said, a fluid and ever-changing power balance that assures continued liberty. Corporations cannot ever be considered a united body. The media co-operate about as much as Fox and the New York Times. Lobby groups are as varied as you can get - pro-life, pro-choice, conservative religious, gay-rights, etc. What you have described here is not a conspiracy to seize power but a pack of dogs all pulling in different directions. Unlikely that any one of them could come close to power. This is why America remains free - thank you for making my point!

You're really quite naive. In this age of massive mergers and consolidation, corporations are becoming larger, their numbers smaller and their power greater. And while they may compete with each other, they know how to sing from the same songbook on matters of mutual interest. And while theyre are a great number of advocacy and lobby groups, some are more powerful than others by virtue of having more money at their disposal. Let's put it this way: who's more likely to have their voice heard by the Bush administration: an environmental group or the oil and gas lobby?

Money, not democracy, not the public interest, is what drives politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm simply indicating that the U.S. has consistenetly demonstrated that, despite rhetoric about defending democracy and so forth, it is driven by self-interest above all else.

Right. It's interests are the preservation of its own democracy and that of its preferred allies. The USA has saved its own freedom and also the freedom of Britain, Canada, France, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Holland, West Germany, Austria, Japan, South Korea, and so on and so forth.

So to prevent a hypothetical massacre by a democratically elected leader, the U.S. had to back a very real massacre of thousands of people?

No. Hindsight is always 20/20. The CIA knew that they had a Marxist in Chile, and knew that Marxism tends to spread because of "missionary" work and the Marxist passion for terrorism, violence, and military conquest and subsequent annexation. They also knew that Allende was going to be a butcher, Marxist leaders always are without exception. By the time they acted, Allende had already plunged Chile into economic chaos and was drawing closer to Cuba and the USSR, so they took action, picked the guy most likely to be able to get rid of Allende and backed him. Unfortunately, that guy was not much better in the human rights department, but at least the spread of Marxist cancer was arrested there.

In summary, it wasn't a mistake to get rid of Allende. It was a mistake to replace Allende with Pinochet. I don't think the CIA was itching to see 3,000 Chileans murdered, so I think it's fair to call this a mistake.

Let's put it this way: who's more likely to have their voice heard by the Bush administration: an environmental group or the oil and gas lobby?

Alright, you have any actual evidence of this, or are you just buying Benjamin Barber's line of crap wholesale?

Money, not democracy, not the public interest, is what drives politics.

Rubbish. Politics has far more influence over the economy than vice versa. Corporations can't bribe politicians, all they can do is back the ones who support them, and if you can't find a politician who agrees with you, you're out of luck! That's why tobacco advertising hasn't resurfaced: no matter how rich and powerful the tobacco companies get they can't make any political headway without political backing, and they can't buy that.

Oh, and you remember how Congress confiscated $100bn from the oil companies in 1980? Remember how the DoJ went after Bill Gates like a rabid dog? Remember how Bethlehem Steel was virtually driven out of business by environmental concerns? What about John Connally, who had more corporate backing than any politician in history which only got him one delegate from all the primaries he entered? Money drives politics, my foot. You don't have a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. It's interests are the preservation of its own democracy and that of its preferred allies. The

*bangs head against wall*

In summary, it wasn't a mistake to get rid of Allende. It was a mistake to replace Allende with Pinochet. I don't think the CIA was itching to see 3,000 Chileans murdered, so I think it's fair to call this a mistake.

Or, and here's a wacky notion, they could have let the people of Chile deal with their own domestic issues themselves instead of subverting democracy and replacing one (completely hypothetical) butcher with another. Jesus Christ.

CIA instructions on Chile coup.

More documents

Alright, you have any actual evidence of this, or are you just buying Benjamin Barber's line of crap wholesale?

Let's see...

The Bush cabinet and friends.

Open your eyes, man. I don't know why you are so eager to defend these people. They don't give a damn about you, they don't give a damn about abnybody else.

Money drives politics, my foot. You don't have a clue.

You're blind to the simple realities of politics today. Whether its just basic naivete or willful ignorance is irrelevant. I don't see the point of this anymore. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see... The Bush cabinet and friends.

Wow! Bush and his staff have connections to business! Who would have thought it?

Or, and here's a wacky notion, they could have let the people of Chile deal with their own domestic issues themselves instead of subverting democracy and replacing one (completely hypothetical) butcher with another.

By that rationale, shouldn't WWII have stopped at the German border? Do you think we should have done that - pushed the Wehrmacht back to Germany and then struck a peace accord with Hitler?

You're blind to the simple realities of politics today... I don't see the point of this anymore.

You're answering evidence and fact with feelings and sentiments. That doesn't work in the real world, so I agree, until you can actually ground your arguments in facts there isn't much point to this debate. All you've done so far is spout irrational and self-contradictory anti-American nonsense without a shred of evidence to back yourself up. You won't answer my questions and when forced to concede a point you just drop it altogether, probably hoping I won't notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

w! Bush and his staff have connections to business! Who would have thought it?

Obviously not you.

By that rationale, shouldn't WWII have stopped at the German border? Do you think we should have done that - pushed the Wehrmacht back to Germany and then struck a peace accord with Hitler?

Invoking Hitler: always a tell tale sign of a losing argument. Apples and oranges.

All you've done so far is spout irrational and self-contradictory anti-American nonsense without a shred of evidence to back yourself up

So willful ignorance it is, then.

I've put up reams of supporting evidence. You've put up denials and obfuscations. You don't argue, you make declarations. You haven't countered a single point, just deny deny deny.

This kind of non-debate is why I quit posting here for a while and why I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the accusation that money drives democracy was made. I've yet to see an argument proving this worng. To prove my point, let me ask you this

have you visited the website for the:

The Conservative Party?

The Liberal Party?

The NDP?

The CAP?

The Greens?

The Absouletly Absurd Party?

The National Alternative Party?

The Cosmopolitan Party?

The Sniper Party?

if you answered just one of these with a no, then you've proven my point. Unless you have the money to advertise, no one cares enough to find out about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...