Canadians Still Distrust US of A

[Guest American Woman]

I'd expect that those countries that look at China as more favourable than the US are probably countries in Asia.

If you look at the chart, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Great Britain all rate China higher; it looks as if Canada rates us about the same. I seriously think it says more about those countries than it does about us.

People generally know when they are being screwed over financially, or lied to. People know some history, like using the atomic bomb is one of the most abhorrent acts ever committed. Not necessarily by its scale of death, but what it represents- massive wealth directed towards developing weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, and of course China is so fair and honest (as are all those nations doing the judging). Furthermore, the atomic bomb wasn't directed toward a developing nation; it was directed at a country that bombed us, and from what I've read/heard, our allies were celebrating our ending the war, and we've enjoyed a good relationship with Japan since the war. Hard to say what would have happened had our side not won, so those weapons of mass destruction can also be perceived as weapons of self defense.

I think it's not specifically hatred of the US per se, but any country that seeks hegemony and becomes the dominant empire will be disliked.

What makes you think we seek hegemony while China doesn't? And Great Britain, for example, certainly has a history of imperialism. Furthermore, disliking a country simply because it's 'dominant' isn't a very good reason. That sounds more like resentment.

[Sir Bandelot]

the atomic bomb wasn't directed toward a developing nation; it was directed at a country that bombed us, and from what I've read/heard, our allies were celebrating our ending the war, and we've enjoyed a good relationship with Japan since the war. Hard to say what would have happened had our side not won, so those weapons of mass destruction can also be perceived as weapons of self defense.

< Insert justification for using weapons of mass destruction here >

disliking a country simply because it's 'dominant' isn't a very good reason. That sounds more like resentment.

Kinda like how people might hate their boss, especially if he/she is the very "bossy" kind.

My own "boss" is considered a buffoon, jerk, and self-serving asshole. People don't hate him automatically just because he's "the boss". no. It's the thinks he does, the privileges he gives himself such as taking trips to far away conferences in Europe or Australia, and at the same time denying the staff resources for training on new technologies, which is essential to our operations. I think what people hate the most is hypocrisy.

Can't defend China, or Canada. in these regards.

Just because your opponent is "bad", does not de fact make you "good". In a situation where practically none are "good". We primitive human beings have so so much to learn.

[bush_cheney2004]

< Insert justification for using weapons of mass destruction here >

Victory over Japan...besides....no sense in letting all that uranium ore mined by unsuspecting natives in Canada go to waste.

[bloodyminded]

Moral underpinning? What makes criticism of the U.S. more moral than criticism of Iran?

And where in the world did you get this? I certainly never broached such a topic, nor hinted at it.

Criminal nation? You're way afield of the post topic.

The post topic is about Canadian distrust of the U.S. I would think such a topic begs the question as to possible reasons.

It's "way afield of the post topic" only if we make it a prescriptive paramater of discussion that all criticism of the U.S. must be a disorder of those criticizing it; to be sure, this is an article of faith by hardcore nationalists, but is neither sane nor wise.

Edited December 13, 2009 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Furthermore, disliking a country simply because it's 'dominant' isn't a very good reason. That sounds more like resentment.

Actually, the onus is always on the powerful to justify their power; never on others to justify their problems with power.

[jbg]

People know some history, like using the atomic bomb is one of the most abhorrent acts ever committed. Not necessarily by its scale of death, but what it represents- massive wealth directed towards developing weapons of mass destruction.

As for Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the like, war is hell, no doubt about that. To more directly and further address your post, you are also forgetting that the U.S.'s resources, while abundant compared to the British, were far from unlimited. When Truman succceeded Roosevelt he was quickly advised that the U.S. was about to be shut out of world credit markets and that the war had to be speedily ended. Given the current U.S. alliance with Japan I don't think sucking up to Tojo would have been a good idea.

As for war generally, all people of goodwill favor peace. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.

Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, peole demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to foresake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theatres on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. In the Pacific theatre of WW II, how many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, and Iwo Jima that could have been saved had the atom bomb been available for use earlier?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

[jbg]

And where in the world did you get this (implication that U.S. is less moral than most countries and I gave Iran as an example)? I certainly never broached such a topic, nor hinted at it.

The post topic is about Canadian distrust of the U.S. I would think such a topic begs the question as to possible reasons.

It's "way afield of the post topic" only if we make it a prescriptive paramater of discussion that all criticism of the U.S. must be a disorder of those criticizing it; to be sure, this is an article of faith by hardcore nationalists, but is neither sane nor wise.

I think that whenever you use overblown rhetoric you risk marginalizing yourself.

[Sir Bandelot]

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

A brutal philosphy which many people around the world would totally disagree with. Most of them would be anti-American.

[Guest American Woman]

jbg, on 13 December 2009 - 11:56 AM, said: For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

A brutal philosphy which many people around the world would totally disagree with. Most of them would be anti-American.

Many people around the world including many Americans, so why would they be anti-American?-- That's not America's philosophy/policy. Furthermore, there are many people around the world, including Canadians, who do agree with jbg's philosophy.

[Sir Bandelot]

Many people around the world including many Americans, so why would they be anti-American?-- That's not America's philosophy/policy. Furthermore, there are many people around the world, including Canadians, who do agree with jbg's philosophy.

But I think any "distrust" is not directed specifically towards everyday Americans one might meet in the street. To me distrusting the US of A would mean as a country, due to its foreign policies.

Things like "Project for the new American century... A Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity". Although I don't know if that is a real or phoney document. Tell me it's not real.

[bush_cheney2004]

But I think any "distrust" is not directed specifically towards everyday Americans one might meet in the street. To me distrusting the US of A would mean as a country, due to its foreign policies.

To do otherwise would be foolish, and indicative of the naive expectations some Canadians have for not only the "US of A", but any other sovereign nation state with different interests. This is just more "anthropomorphizing", from "friends" to "cousins" to "neighbours" and so on. Very silly.....

Things like "Project for the new American century... A Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity". Although I don't know if that is a real or phoney document. Tell me it's not real.

Of course it's real....America even has/had contingency plans for the "invasion" of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

For some reason, a few Canadians are very naive about such things, by ignoring their own history and policies, attributing all things labeled "evil" to the USA, usually both at the same time. In a pathetic display of impotence whilst in the gravitaional pull of an American version of Jupiter, the very notion of "distrust" abdicates responsibility and complicity in the very policies decried, all while enjoying over $400 billion in cross border trade each year.

[Sir Bandelot]

To do otherwise would be foolish, and indicative of the naive expectations some Canadians have for not only the "US of A", but any other sovereign nation state with different interests. This is just more "anthropomorphizing", from "friends" to "cousins" to "neighbours" and so on. Very silly.....

Of course it's real....America even has/had contingency plans for the "invasion" of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

For some reason, a few Canadians are very naive about such things, by ignoring their own history and policies, attributing all things labeled "evil" to the USA, usually both at the same time. In a pathetic display of impotence whilst in the gravitaional pull of an American version of Jupiter, the very notion of "distrust" abdicates responsibility and complicity in the very policies decried, all while enjoying over $400 billion in cross border trade each year.

... plus, they are a bunch of big meanies.

[bush_cheney2004]

... plus, they are a bunch of big meanies.

...and my childish favorite...."schoolyard bullies".

[bloodyminded]

I think that whenever you use overblown rhetoric you risk marginalizing yourself.

Evidently we agree on this truism. We only disagree on the idea that I have been using overblown rhetoric.

[jbg]

Many people around the world including many Americans, so why would they be anti-American?-- That's not America's philosophy/policy. Furthermore, there are many people around the world, including Canadians, who do agree with jbg's philosophy.

This isn't so much a philosophy as a view of history. I don't see any viable alternatives that have worked historically. Just about every war recent and large enough to matter, basically from the Civil War through World War II, started with attempts to fight on less than a full-scale basis. All ended when one side pulled the mitts off.

Evidently we agree on this truism. We only disagree on the idea that I have been using overblown rhetoric.

This isn't a bit "overblown"?

While Canadians might do well to stop pretending we aren't a criminal nation, it's nonetheless only rational to criticize the Imperial behemoth.

The United states misbehaves, very, very badly misbehaves. And because of its tremendous power, its misbehaviors can have catastrophic effects.

As an institution.

As an institution, it is a criminal enterprise run very much on the model of gangsters.

[Sir Bandelot]

Evidently we agree on this truism. We only disagree on the idea that I have been using overblown rhetoric.

Well jbg doesn't need to worry about that anymore...

[bloodyminded]

This isn't a bit "overblown"?

bloodyminded, on 07 December 2009 - 03:27 PM, said:

While Canadians might do well to stop pretending we aren't a criminal nation, it's nonetheless only rational to criticize the Imperial behemoth.

bloodyminded, on 07 December 2009 - 03:27 PM, said:

The United states misbehaves, very, very badly misbehaves. And because of its tremendous power, its misbehaviors can have catastrophic effects.

As an institution.

As an institution, it is a criminal enterprise run very much on the model of gangsters.

No, not at all. The primary overblown rhetoric we see comes from nationalists, who moan endlessly about the moral glories of geopolitical entities known as "nations."

As soon as one tries to cut through the conventional pieties (The US as moral force trying to "do good," Canada as a "humanitarian country"), he is met with such hostility. Any attempt at an institutional analysis is seen as "overblown rhetoric"--although we can say precisely the things I have said about someone ELSE, so long as our leaders have officially declared enmity.

It's plain, old-fashioned servility, little more.

But then, that's predictable: no one is more delicate--dainty, even--than nationalists.

Edited December 13, 2009 by bloodyminded