What are the important cultural differences between Canada and the US?

[Guest American Woman]

I am afraid you have nt the slightest clue then.

Spell it out. tell us how Canada as a nation went and fought the War in Iraq

It's not me who doesn't have the slightest clue, and if you need me, an American, to tell you that - well, you just prove my point. But I've been there, done that, and won't be doing it again here. I've no desire to educate Canadians who are in the dark and prefer to be in denial; but Canada was, indeed, in the "Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping."

[guyser]

It's not me who doesn't have the slightest clue, and if you need me, an American, to tell you that - well, you just prove my point. But I've been there, done that, and won't be doing it again here. I've no desire to educate Canadians who are in the dark and prefer to be in denial; but Canada was, indeed, in the "Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping."

Wow, just wow. You wont be educating anyone but yourself. but then you appear wholly ignoran about this (if not then why not answer the question)t,or just playing some cutesy act

Heres the truth. Yes we had some personnel (100-150) on exhange withg US and British personnel in proximity of combat.

We had 3 frigates supporting the Gulf region

So believe what you want, ignorantly obviously, but Canada did not go to war in Iraq.

[Guest American Woman]

Wow, just wow. You wont be educating anyone but yourself. but then you appear wholly ignoran about this (if not then why not answer the question)t,or just playing some cutesy act

Heres the truth. Yes we had some personnel (100-150) on exhange withg US and British personnel in proximity of combat.

We had 3 frigates supporting the Gulf region

So believe what you want, ignorantly obviously, but Canada did not go to war in Iraq.

Denial, denial, denial. With insults, to boot.

[guyser]

Denial, denial, denial. With insults, to boot.

Theres only one insult, and thats the refusal to answer a simple question to back your point up.

We were not part of the coalition of the willing,Canada did not go into the War in Iraq.

[Guest American Woman]

Theres only one insult, and thats the refusal to answer a simple question to back your point up.

We were not part of the coalition of the willing...

Oh wow, only one insult.

I didn't say you were part of the Coalition of the Willing; I said you were part of the "Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping." .

[bush_cheney2004]

I didn't say you were part of the Coalition of the Willing; I said you were part of the "Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping." .

'Zactly ! It took me a while to figure out their game for domestic political consumption, but now I understand it.

[Guest American Woman]

It took me awhile to understand some things, too - but better late than never, I say.

[Hudson Jones]

Why deny the facts? Canada participated in the Iraq war in different ways. They were obligated to, since they are part of NATO.

[guyser]

Oh wow, only one insult.

I didn't say you were part of the Coalition of the Willing; I said you were part of the "Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping." .

Here is what you said.

while I totally disagreed with it, went into Iraq making no bones about it - as Canada went too, but pretended it didn't. As much as I disagreed with going to war, I'd much rather my country be open about it than hide it and pretend to be something it's not.

That reads that the US went to war , and it reads that my country (US) be open about it, as opposed to Canada not being open about going to war.

We didnt go to war.

[jbg]

Well, it's a safe bet to say that you don't know "Canada" at all, as it is a far more complex place that your tiny and narrow view from America allows.

Goes both ways I suppose.

Is that nice little attack aimed at me?

Funny you categorize that as an attack , and even funnier that you attempt to purposely try to ingratiate yourself in some non existant made up spat.

You walk around all day this way? Maybe so, you are a lawyer.

What else is it then? It sure seems like a personal attack, one which I don't expect from you. I'm surprised and not pleasantly.

[Guest American Woman]

What else is it then? It sure seems like a personal attack, one which I don't expect from you. I'm surprised and not pleasantly.

What makes you think guyser's post was aimed at you? It followed bush_cheney's post, and used the same words he had used.

[Guest American Woman]

Here is what you said.

That reads that the US went to war , and it reads that my country (US) be open about it, as opposed to Canada not being open about going to war.

We didnt go to war.

So you keep saying, and I keep pointing out that your denial doesn't change the reality.

[GostHacked]

Ummm, Yeah. "Technically" you did.

Technically the USA did not go to war with Iraq either. There was no formal declaration of war from either country.

So why not own it instead of trying to make it into something it was not?

How many mountains have you made out of molehills? Careful AW.

So show me where your outrage was? All I saw was criticism of Bush et al. I said that perhaps I missed it. So please point it out.

Bush could not have painted a bigger target on the USA for international criticism of how Iraq was handled. Based on the amount of grandstanding that happened, it's not hard to steal the spotlight.

Even when Canadians do have outrage against Canada there are two people here who still think it's really a kick at the USA. It's a matter of a warped self image I would guess.

For the record, denial doesn't change the reality.

I don't think you really understand irony in that statement at all.

[Guest American Woman]

Technically the USA did not go to war with Iraq either. There was no formal declaration of war from either country.

Well then, I guess there was no war, eh?

How many mountains have you made out of molehills? Careful AW.

I have no idea what this means or what relevance you think it has.

Bush could not have painted a bigger target on the USA for international criticism of how Iraq was handled. Based on the amount of grandstanding that happened, it's not hard to steal the spotlight.

It's about one country's refusal to be "in the spotlight" supporting the war at all, as it put itself "in the spotlight" pretending to choose not to be involved.

Even when Canadians do have outrage against Canada there are two people here who still think it's really a kick at the USA. It's a matter of a warped self image I would guess.

I have no idea what that means, either, or what point you are trying to make.

I don't think you really understand irony in that statement at all.

I don't understand most of what you said in this response.

[GostHacked]

Well then, I guess there was no war, eh?

Libya was a 'kenetic military action' coined by the US military.

I have no idea what this means or what relevance you think it has.

Step 1 - Make mountains out of molehills.

Step 2 - Play ignorant.

It's about one country's refusal to be "in the spotlight" supporting the war at all, as it put itself "in the spotlight" pretending to choose not to be involved.

One country? Many who signed up for Afghanistan (Including Canada which continues their mission to this day there) said a huge NO to Iraq. Not just one country, many did not want to get into that spotlight.

Even in a case like Libya where Italy, France were all for it, Canada gave air support and then both Italy and Frances reneged on their commitments. Not the first time these two countries have pulled something like that.

I have no idea what that means, either, or what point you are trying to make.

I don't understand most of what you said in this response.

I don't know how to simplify it any more for you in a way you would understand.

[Guest American Woman]

One country? Many who signed up for Afghanistan (Including Canada which continues their mission to this day there) said a huge NO to Iraq. Not just one country, many did not want to get into that spotlight.

Some said "no" and meant it, while others just pretended to say "no" for the spotlight. Canada would be the leading country in that category.* So for the record, we're discussing Canada and the U.S. in this thread, so the "one country" I was referring to was one of the two. ie: Canada. I do realize that some countries weren't involved.

In that light, here's some reading material for all of you in denial: ....the next time a proud fellow citizen tells you that Canada didn’t join the Iraq War, remind them of Mark Twain’s famous quip: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

*As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing…. And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

Edited June 15, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Some said "no" and meant it, while others just pretended to say "no" for the spotlight. Canada would be the leading country in that category.* So for the record, we're discussing Canada and the U.S. in this thread, so the "one country" I was referring to was one of the two. ie: Canada. I do realize that some countries weren't involved.

We've always followed the USA around the globe, and that needs to stop.

In that light, here's some reading material for all of you in denial: On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War, the Global Research News Hour interviews Richard Sanders of the Coalition Opposed to the Arms Trade (COAT) about the myth of Canada’s non-involvement in Iraq.

Technically we did not go to war. Reality is that Canada provided plenty of logistical support for the US military. Undeniable and I do not condone it.

And I'll end with a quote from someone else who gets it: ....the next time a proud fellow citizen tells you that Canada didn’t join the Iraq War, remind them of Mark Twain’s famous quip: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

That Mark Twain bit works for the falsified evidence that drummed up support for a war in the first place. If you quote someone, make sure it can't be used back at you.

*As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing…. And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

Coalition of the duped more like it.

[Guest American Woman]

We've always followed the USA around the globe, and that needs to stop.

Yes you have, and most likely will continue to, because of the benefits to Canada. That's about Canada, not the U.S.

Technically we did not go to war. Reality is that Canada provided plenty of logistical support for the US military. Undeniable and I do not condone it.

You went as "technically" as any of the others involved. You don't condone it - even as you try to make it into something that you likely perceive as 'less bad.' Just because Canada wasn't open about its involvement doesn't change anything. In fact, the fact that Canada tried to pretend otherwise, spoke of not supporting the war while reaping the world's praises, is rather reprehensible.

That Mark Twain bit works for the falsified evidence that drummed up support for a war in the first place. If you quote someone, make sure it can't be used back at you.

It can't be used back at me.

Coalition of the duped more like it.

Or coalition that can't think for itself? - Is that what you're saying? Again, you try to downplay the choices that counties made by making excuses, ultimately putting their choices on the U.S.

Own it.

This is a huge cultural difference between our countries, IMO - Canada's need to be "liked" and thought of as "peace loving" worldwide - while doing whatever benefits Canada.

Edited June 16, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Yes you have, and most likely will continue to, because of the benefits to Canada. That's about Canada, not the U.S.

It's been that way from very early on. Decades, if not over a century.

You went as "technically" as any of the others involved. You don't condone it - even as you try to make it into something that you likely perceive as 'less bad.'

Technically we did not. There was no formal declaration of war. Our actions did say otherwise and are violating Canadian law as well as international law. But because both our governments like to lie to us, I presented this in a way that our leaders would present it to us. This allowed you to perceive my stance as 'less bad'. It's all in how it is worded.

Technically there was no war in Libya either. It was 'kinetic military action'. So the perception there is that this is less bad than war. The result was the same, Libya got f'd up bad and still is to this day.

Just because Canada wasn't open about its involvement doesn't change anything. In fact, the fact that Canada tried to pretend otherwise, spoke of not supporting the war while reaping the world's praises, is rather reprehensible.

Canada was not open about it, plain and simple and I agree with you that it is reprehensible. It's really strange that you and I agree with many things when talking about Canada, but we rarely see eye to eye when talking about the USA.

It can't be used back at me.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” The US knew that there were no WMD threat in Iraq, and that got them into trouble.

Not sure how high a value you put on a life, but American soldiers died for a cause they believed in. Knowing the lies regarding the Iraq WMD threat, each one of those soldiers death on the battlefield could have been prevented.

Or coalition that can't think for itself? - Is that what you're saying? Again, you try to downplay the choices that counties made by making excuses, ultimately putting their choices on the U.S.

Don't blame me for George Bush gaining the USA so much attention regarding these matters. We have our own buffoon in office currently that is now getting Canada a lot of attention.

This is a huge cultural difference between our countries, IMO - Canada's need to be "liked" and thought of as "peace loving" worldwide - while doing whatever benefits Canada.

The people are peace loving, our government is not. Shockingly, we agree here as well.

[Guest American Woman]

It's been that way from very early on. Decades, if not over a century.

Yes, and likely it will continue to be.

Technically we did not. There was no formal declaration of war. Our actions did say otherwise and are violating Canadian law as well as international law. But because both our governments like to lie to us, I presented this in a way that our leaders would present it to us. This allowed you to perceive my stance as 'less bad'. It's all in how it is worded.

Again. Canada did as "technically" as the next guy who pledged support; Canada just didn't do it openly. That doesn't change the reality. Meanwhile, you got to play The Good Guy in front of the rest of the world, as your countrymen get to believe that Canada didn't do as it said; quite the opposite.

Technically there was no war in Libya either. It was 'kinetic military action'. So the perception there is that this is less bad than war. The result was the same, Libya got f'd up bad and still is to this day.

You're the one who's been focusing on "technically." As I keep pointing out, Canada was as involved as the next guy who pledged support. Actually, more involved than most, other than the UK and Australia. That was clearly pointed out when it came time for the U.S. to give out contracts.

Canada was not open about it, plain and simple and I agree with you that it is reprehensible. It's really strange that you and I agree with many things when talking about Canada, but we rarely see eye to eye when talking about the USA.

Good. We're on the same page about this then. I have said repeatedly that I didn't agree with going to war in Iraq, so I'm not so sure what you think we disagree with there. I have said repeatedly that I didn't believe Saddam had WMD, so I'm not sure what you think we disagree with there. I, however, think Iraqis are better off without Saddam - while you apparently think that as long as a brutal, murderous dictator keeps the masses in line, it's preferable to a fledgling democracy. That's something that we'll never agree on.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” The US knew that there were no WMD threat in Iraq, and that got them into trouble.

Trouble, how? "The U.S." got what it wanted - war in Iraq, Saddam ousted.

Not sure how high a value you put on a life,

Not sure if you put any value on life.

but American soldiers died for a cause they believed in. Knowing the lies regarding the Iraq WMD threat, each one of those soldiers death on the battlefield could have been prevented.

How do you know why the soldiers were there fighting? How do you know what they believed??

Don't blame me for George Bush gaining the USA so much attention regarding these matters. We have our own buffoon in office currently that is now getting Canada a lot of attention.

You're the one who put it all on him. So yeah, I will blame you for that.

The people are peace loving, our government is not. Shockingly, we agree here as well.

Canadians are no more "peace loving" than the next person. Furthermore, they enjoy the benefits of the government's decisions same as anywhere else.

[GostHacked]

Again. Canada did as "technically" as the next guy who pledged support; Canada just didn't do it openly. That doesn't change the reality. Meanwhile, you got to play The Good Guy in front of the rest of the world, as your countrymen get to believe that Canada didn't do as it said; quite the opposite.

You're the one who's been focusing on "technically." As I keep pointing out, Canada was as involved as the next guy who pledged support. Actually, more involved than most, other than the UK and Australia. That was clearly pointed out when it came time for the U.S. to give out contracts.

Even when I agree with you, you still try to make an argument out of it. I simply just don't understand what you gain from doing so?

This is what governments do. They use nice attorney type terms to paint the action/subject in a different narrative. It happens all the time. Bush said .. there was a time for politics and .. well there is a time for politics.

Good. We're on the same page about this then. I have said repeatedly that I didn't agree with going to war in Iraq, so I'm not so sure what you think we disagree with there. I have said repeatedly that I didn't believe Saddam had WMD, so I'm not sure what you think we disagree with there. I, however, think Iraqis are better off without Saddam - while you apparently think that as long as a brutal, murderous dictator keeps the masses in line, it's preferable to a fledgling democracy. That's something that we'll never agree on.

The end result is what we disagree on. You say it's better, I say it's not.

How do you know why the soldiers were there fighting? How do you know what they believed??

I'll use an example like the former NFL player Pat Tillman who left a very good career to sign up and head to Iraq to protect your freedom. Not all were like this, some went because it was a job, nothing more. If the view is nothing more than a job, then I question the motive of people wanting to enter service.

You're the one who put it all on him. So yeah, I will blame you for that.

There is no way I can be blamed for what George Bush has done not only to Iraq, but the USA as well. The attention he gets and the attention the USA gets because of it is very very well deserved. But me being the little pesky Canadian seems to be more of a problem than your very own President who brought your country to war based on lies.

Obama has done and IS doing the same thing. If it pleases you, I will also say that Harper and Baird are bringing us into another conflict we should NOT be a part of (aka Syria), seeing how well we did in Libya.

Canadians are no more "peace loving" than the next person. Furthermore, they enjoy the benefits of the government's decisions same as anywhere else.

The overwhelming majority of people on this planet are peace loving humans. However our leaders like to manipulate us in a way to get us hating others based on lies. If you chose to be manipulated, then you may not be as peace loving as you think you are. And protesters were given a very bad label when they came out in public to oppose the war.

If you are protesting the protesters, then you may not be a fan of peace.

When you told people you opposed the war, what were people's reactions to you?

[Moonlight Graham]

smallc had a good list on the 1st page of this thread. I'll add:

- Americans are much more patriotic. History is more important to them in schooling, and they are brought up to the think they're the best country in the world (so my mother says, who spend years of her childhood in US schools).

- The US is more of a melting pot, while Canada is more of a "cultural mosaic" where multiculturalism is encouraged at the expense of nationalism.

- Americans are more religious, especially in the public sphere, while Canada is more secular.

- Canadians tend to be more reserved, quiet, timid people (except for Quebecers, they're party animals), some say more polite. Americans tend to be more boisterous (some say loud and obnoxious), more willing to speak their mind, yet at the same time more friendly and willing to talk to you (if in the right social setting).

- Americans have a history of violence (ie: a country born out of violent revolution, plus the 19th century civil war and the massive military built-up post-WWII), so I would say they were a more violent and militaristic people. They have a huge gun culture and gun rights/ownership is important to many Americans. Canadians have not been exposed to the civil wars or militaristic culture Americans have, and guns aren't as important.

- Canadians can give somebody the finger on the highway without being afraid of having a gun pointed at them (see above).

- Americans have such vibrant media that they tend to culturally inward-focused, meaning they consume much of their own media and thus are less exposed to what is happening in the rest of the world (in the arts, or otherwise). Canada makes less of its own media, and consumes a lot of American media, plus other media from around the world. An example is music: Americans listen to a lot of American musicians, plus a bunch of musicians from other parts of the world, while Canadians listen to American music + worldwide music...+ Canadian music most Americans will never be exposed to.

- US has "black guilt" syndrome. ie: Every TV show has to have a token black person in it, otherwise someone will scream "racism".

[guyser]

What else is it then? It sure seems like a personal attack, one which I don't expect from you. I'm surprised and not pleasantly.

The post you responded to was obviously.....sorry, obviously to everyone but you , a reply to someone else since only one word was changed.

[Guest American Woman]

smallc had a good list on the 1st page of this thread. I'll add:

- Americans are much more patriotic. History is more important to them in schooling, and they are brought up to the think they're the best country in the world (so my mother says, who spend years of her childhood in US schools).

[...]

Well, I learned something today. Apparently all of the cultural differences between our nations are negative on the American end.

Edited June 17, 2013 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I learned something today. Apparently all of the cultural differences between our nations are negative on the American end.

Yep...pretty much....that's how the Canadian identity is defined...except when they want better Netflix !