What form of government would you like to see?

[ToadBrother]

You can call it whatever you please....President Monroe had no idea that his proclamation would have such a long run and impact on the western hemisphere. These are the Americas..the beginning of the end for the Empire(s) with no setting sun.

I never said it wasn't influential, it certainly dominated the Western Hemisphere for the better part of two centuries. I'm saying the doctrine's influence is fading, in large part because, particularly in Spanish-speaking Latin America, anti-American sentiment has gained enormous currency (fairly and unfairly, the US has been blamed for a lot of the bad stuff that went on, fairly in the respect that the US in its justified bid to contain Communism often supported some very bad people, unfairly because since the days of Simon Bolivar, Latin America has been a politically unstable place, and blaming the US for that is ludicrous). The trend of European and Asian, in particular Chinese investment is giving Latin American countries an alternative sphere of influence, and despite the still not insubstantial economic problems in the region, countries like Brazil, Chile and Argentina are clearly heading in the direction of being major economies in the 21st century.

I think the Doctrine will stay play a big role in Mexico and Cuba, and to a lesser extent in Central America, but South America, whose political leaders a couple of centuries ago absolutely adored the United States, has fallen out of love and is viewing its relationship with the United States without illusions. I'm not defending that, as I said above, to a great extent the US cannot be held responsible for every tin-pot dictator over the last couple of centuries who brutalized some segment of the population, but it certainly has to wear guys like Pinochet. What a lot of Latin Americans never ask themselves is whether it would have been any better under the competing Soviet clients, it was just their bad luck that Latin America was a focal point of Cold War ideological and economic competition, mainly because the traditional governing classes since independence from Spain had been so incredibly self-serving and inept.

As for reputation, forgiveness is easier to get than permission. America can leave "lofty" to the Canadian pretenders.

I don't see how forgiveness has gained much ground. And I don't think we Canucks are any better, as evidenced by the incredibly bad reputation our mining companies are getting in various developing countries. We Canadians have this tendency for obnoxious smugness, rarely realizing that we owe a considerable amount to the United States, particularly during the Cold War, and that economically, we are to one extent or another a client state, or if that analogy irritates, then at least joined at the hip. Believe me, I'm no kneejerk anti-American Canuck bigot. I admire the American system of government, and don't really feel that we are any better, we're just smaller so we have less ability to screw the pooch.

Edited July 16, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

I think the Doctrine will stay play a big role in Mexico and Cuba, and to a lesser extent in Central America, but South America, whose political leaders a couple of centuries ago absolutely adored the United States, has fallen out of love and is viewing its relationship with the United States without illusions. I'm not defending that, as I said above, to a great extent the US cannot be held responsible for every tin-pot dictator over the last couple of centuries who brutalized some segment of the population, but it certainly has to wear guys like Pinochet.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, as the United States is not looking to escape "blame" for tinpot dictators of its own making or otherwise. It was the policy of the United States to absolutely dominate this hemisphere, without apology or remorse. This it does with vigor and conviction to the present day, sometimes inviting Canada along for the ride (e.g. Haiti).

What a lot of Latin Americans never ask themselves is whether it would have been any better under the competing Soviet clients, it was just their bad luck that Latin America was a focal point of Cold War ideological and economic competition, mainly because the traditional governing classes since independence from Spain had been so incredibly self-serving and inept.

No, the Americans had a much superior ideological and economic product to sell, and capital investment to boot. Cuba is still kicking its own ass riding around in 1954 Chevy's.

I don't see how forgiveness has gained much ground. And I don't think we Canucks are any better, as evidenced by the incredibly bad reputation our mining companies are getting in various developing countries. We Canadians have this tendency for obnoxious smugness, rarely realizing that we owe a considerable amount to the United States, particularly during the Cold War, and that economically, we are to one extent or another a client state, or if that analogy irritates, then at least joined at the hip.

I've been preaching that line here for several years....maybe it means more when an actual Canadian says it.

Believe me, I'm no kneejerk anti-American Canuck bigot. I admire the American system of government, and don't really feel that we are any better, we're just smaller so we have less ability to screw the pooch.

I don't think it matters in the long run, as Canadians bitch when either getting too close or too far away from the Americans. Internal struggles and constant observation of what happens in/to America must be wearing. I hope that MLW posts are not typical of general self doubt about government, representation, or selection of leadership when clearly Canadians want government to do more and more. The Americans fight over this, but we know when the next election is...like clockwork.

Edited July 16, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, as the United States is not looking to escape "blame" for tinpot dictators of its own making or otherwise. It was the policy of the United States to absolutely dominate this hemisphere, without apology or remorse. This it does with vigor and conviction to the present day, sometimes inviting Canada along for the ride (e.g. Haiti).

The Caribbean isn't South America, though even in the Caribbean, Europe holds a lot more economic sway. Whether that eclipses the US is doubtful, but let's put it this way, if you're a small or poor country in the Western Hemisphere looking for a state or international bloc to invest in you, the marketplace is bigger than it was fifteen or twenty years ago.

South America, however, is slipping away from the US sphere of influence, if it hasn't already. China is pouring a helluva lot of money and investment into the region, and countries like Brazil are very clearly on to make themselves at least second tier economic powers. Any notion that the US has some sort of absolute hold on that continent is surely evaporating, and very quickly. The Munroe Doctrine won't extend much past Mexico.

No, the Americans had a much superior ideological and economic product to sell, and capital investment to boot. Cuba is still kicking its own ass riding around in 1954 Chevy's.

It was superior, that didn't stop the Soviets from causing all sorts of problems. I'm not even really sure they cared that much about South America, the plan probably being more along the lines of forcing the US to divert some substantial fraction of its power into maintaining its hegemony. Cuba was always a dubious victory for the Soviets, a propaganda win, to be sure, but other than being a cheap source of sugar, it never translated into the domino effect of revolutions in the Americas that the USSR clearly hoped for. Maybe a lot of Cubans will be pissed, but the real lost opportunity was not making Cuba an American state while the US had the chance. Can you imagine Cuba as an American state for the last 70 or 80 years? It would be an utterly different place in every conceivable way.

I don't think it matters in the long run, as Canadians bitch when either getting too close or too far away from the Americans. Internal struggles and constant observation of what happens in/to America must be wearing. I hope that MLW posts are not typical of general self doubt about government, representation, or selection of leadership when clearly Canadians want government to do more and more. The Americans fight over this, but we know when the next election is...like clockwork.

I live in BC, and we live under a fixed election law (looks like Britain has gone that way too). I'm still convinced it's that much better. Yes, governments can't call elections to their own best advantage, but the tradeoff is that an election turns from a 30-60 day affair into a 365 day affair.

As to Canada's relationship with the US, it's just a part of Canadian culture, and not a terribly useful or becoming one. The fact is, that at the end of the day, the US and Canada, and Mexico too, if it can ever bring an end to its own endemic problems, represent an enormously powerful and resource-rich trading bloc.

[eyeball]

I've been preaching that line here for several years....maybe it means more when an actual Canadian says it.

Maybe, but probably only when certain types of Canadians say it.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe, but probably only when certain types of Canadians say it.

Yes, the kind that don't have their nationalistic blinders on, and are prepared to accept certain realities.

[eyeball]

Yes, the kind that don't have their nationalistic blinders on, and are prepared to accept certain realities.

Lap up certain received wisdom is more like it.

Moi a nationalist?

[bloodyminded]

ATM I think that a very strong nationalist right wing government would serve us best at this most dangerous time. Something like Franco's Spain but just not as severe. The traitors to Canada need to be arrested immediately and tried for treason. The pandering to the special interests is to stop and police given expanded powers to weed out the traitors from the nationalists.

"A very strong nationalist right wing government" IS "pandering to the special interests."

Tear down all mosques and not allow any to be built until they allow a Church to be built in Saudi Arabia.

So, legally, a recognized Christian State? No thank you.

Hold State funded rallies to build up morale and belief in Canadians that we are indeed a great nation, capable of so much more then what we're doing. Parades with lines and lines of troops marching down our streets in rows to demonstrate Canada's new military power. No longer will Canada be laughed at internationally.

No, we'd be viewed, correctly and sanely, with unease and suspicion. (And maybe laughed at, nonetheless.)

Find a tropical Caribbean country that wants to become a part of Canada. There we'll set up a Military base plus Canadians will have a nice spot to vacation with the same currency. Plus all those tourism dollars will help fund our home nation of Canada. We'll start looking at the neighboring islands and entice them to come under the Canadian flag as well.

Perhaps invade Cuba to wipe out the Castros and with them Communism, the curse of planet Earth.

From "entice[ment]" to international colonial aggression in one quick step. Nice!

After that Venezuela.

Venezuela would thus become our victim, and we would be the bad guys. That's awesome. Plus, theri regional allies (which is most of Latin America) would be royally pissed, and our relations with them would plummit.

By this time the countries around Cuba And Venezuela will get the message loud and clear. Be like us or be conquered, so I predict other countries in S. America and the Caribbean will start voting in strong right wing governments who will quickly ally themselves with Canada, a rising Superpower.

This has in most respects failed in the US sphere, so what makes you think Canada could (never mind should, for a second) pull it off?

That is my vision, this would take years to accomplish mind you. Years to build up our Military alone to a proper level. The Americans have much to gain as well so they'd be quiet and would silence our critics.

America as Canada's willing subordinate, performing the wishes of Ottawa?

Why do I doubt this?

At any rate, how, exactly, do you suppose that America would "silence our critics"? Through use of force?

Criticism as illegal?

I'm not sure you've thought all this through, Mr. Franco.

Edited July 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

"A very strong nationalist right wing government" IS "pandering to the special interests."

So, legally, a recognized Christian State? No thank you.

No, we'd be viewed, correctly and sanely, with unease and suspicion. (And maybe laughed at, nonetheless.)

From "entice[ment]" to international colonial aggression in one quick step. Nice!

Venezuela would thus become our victim, and we would be the bad guys. That's awesome. Plus, theri regional allies (which is most of Latin America) would be royally pissed, and our relations with them would plummit.

This has in most respects failed in the US sphere, so what makes you think Canada could (never mind should, for a second) pull it off?

America as Canada's willing subordinate, performing the wishes of Ottawa?

Why do I doubt this?

At any rate, how, exactly, do you suppose that America would "silence our critics"? Through use of force?

Criticism as illegal?

I'm not sure you've thought all this through, Mr. Franco.

These are all excellent rebuttals,but you missed the part in the first rebuttal about putting the "traitors" in camps and/or executing them...

Because Mr.Falange wants a softer side of Franco Fascism...

[bloodyminded]

As for reputation, forgiveness is easier to get than permission. America can leave "lofty" to the Canadian pretenders.

Yeah...well, as you no doubt are aware, American policy has always been dressed up in lofty, sanctimonious rhetoric. You know, the sort that everyone in the world has been increasingly laughing at, usually (fortunately for you) with bemused tolerance.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah...well, as you no doubt are aware, American policy has always been dressed up in lofty, sanctimonious rhetoric. You know, the sort that everyone in the world has been increasingly laughing at, usually (fortunately for you) with bemused tolerance.

I don't know why you pick on American foreign policy, when, by and large, it applies to every country. Nation states don't exist to be benefactors to the rest of the world. To some extent, enlightened self-interest will either give a good reason for projection of power, or at least be seen as stabilizing key regions, but at the end of the day, the US is no worse than China, Canada or the EU. The chief difference is one of size. The US has a good deal more money, a larger population and a still fairly impressive (if shrinking) industrial capacity.

You don't think China popping up in Africa and Latin America, throwing in tons of investment and development funding is just being a kindly power? No, it's doing it for the same reason that the US have been helping the Saudis out for decades, and Britain built railroads in Africa and India, because of a vast need for resources of all kinds.

For all this knocking of the US, just about every US embassy out there has a steady stream of people trying to file for visas and find some way, any way to immigrate. Hell, along the Rio Grande, they sneak under fences, over walls and put up with a sizable chunk of the population who hates Romance language-speaking Catholics.

[bloodyminded]

I don't know why you pick on American foreign policy, when, by and large, it applies to every country. Nation states don't exist to be benefactors to the rest of the world. To some extent, enlightened self-interest will either give a good reason for projection of power, or at least be seen as stabilizing key regions, but at the end of the day, the US is no worse than China, Canada or the EU. The chief difference is one of size. The US has a good deal more money, a larger population and a still fairly impressive (if shrinking) industrial capacity.

But I agree. I was responding directly to the very clear insinuation that Canadian policy inaccurately prentends to "lofty" vacuity, whereas the The U.S. doesn't.

I agree with the first point. It's the false comparison with which I disagree, the idea that Americans don't dress up policy in rhetorical nonsense and distortions..

You don't think China popping up in Africa and Latin America, throwing in tons of investment and development funding is just being a kindly power? No, it's doing it for the same reason that the US have been helping the Saudis out for decades, and Britain built railroads in Africa and India, because of a vast need for resources of all kinds.

You're preaching to the choir.

For all this knocking of the US, just about every US embassy out there has a steady stream of people trying to file for visas and find some way, any way to immigrate. Hell, along the Rio Grande, they sneak under fences, over walls and put up with a sizable chunk of the population who hates Romance language-speaking Catholics.

So when I opine that the US is as hypocritical as Canada...that's "knocking of the U.S."?

Edited July 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah...well, as you no doubt are aware, American policy has always been dressed up in lofty, sanctimonious rhetoric. You know, the sort that everyone in the world has been increasingly laughing at, usually (fortunately for you) with bemused tolerance.

Correct, but the difference is that more Canadians actually believe their sanctimonious bullshit (e.g. killing to protect human rights). General Hillier tried to disabuse Canada of these "lofty" notions, to no avail. No sir, when Canada bombs somebody or overthrows a democratically elected official, it's because they really deserved it. LOL!

"Everyone in the world" is ludicrous by definition....as many are not laughing at all.

[ToadBrother]

Correct, but the difference is that more Canadians actually believe their sanctimonious bullshit (e.g. killing to protect human rights). General Hillier tried to disabuse Canada of these "lofty" notions, to no avail. No sir, when Canada bombs somebody or overthrows a democratically elected official, it's because they really deserved it. LOL!

"Everyone in the world" is ludicrous by definition....as many are not laughing at all.

The worst part about it is that we end up shooting ourselves in the foot. A precisely identical mood to the one that saw the Avro Arrow scrapped and our best aeronautics engineers head south is now being invoked over our army, which after eight years involved in what amounts to warfare with an effective insurgency, gaining enormous skills, with a cadre of battle-hardened commanders, is probably going to piss it all away to maintain some bizarre sense of self-importance. The Canadian military hasn't been so well trained in combat since the Korean War, having been poisoned by the idiocies of "peacekeeping" and we'll just let it go, when what we should be doing is using that core of experienced officers to rebuild the mindset of our military.

[bush_cheney2004]

...South America, however, is slipping away from the US sphere of influence, if it hasn't already. China is pouring a helluva lot of money and investment into the region, and countries like Brazil are very clearly on to make themselves at least second tier economic powers. Any notion that the US has some sort of absolute hold on that continent is surely evaporating, and very quickly. The Munroe Doctrine won't extend much past Mexico.

I disagree, as the first purpose of the Monroe Doctrine has already been achieved...arrested European colonial expansion in the America's. That's a done deal. As for the geography of waning influence today, Panama, Costa Rica, and Columbia are much further south than Mexico. And follow-up "doctrines" have added other parts of the world, especially those floating on oil.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The Canadian military hasn't been so well trained in combat since the Korean War, having been poisoned by the idiocies of "peacekeeping" and we'll just let it go, when what we should be doing is using that core of experienced officers to rebuild the mindset of our military.

I would agree with that assessment....General Dallaire would have welcomed such a ready, capable, and deployable force.

[bloodyminded]

Correct, but the difference is that more Canadians actually believe their sanctimonious bullshit (e.g. killing to protect human rights). General Hillier tried to disabuse Canada of these "lofty" notions, to no avail. No sir, when Canada bombs somebody or overthrows a democratically elected official, it's because they really deserved it. LOL!

This is difficult to measure. It's just some impression you get.

"Everyone in the world" is ludicrous by definition....as many are not laughing at all.

True, but many, many are. It IS funny as hell, when you consider it.

[ToadBrother]

I would agree with that assessment....General Dallaire would have welcomed such a ready, capable, and deployable force.

Any commander going into the field would welcome it. Look at the disasters of 1942 with the first American contingents rolling into Africa. An army is very much like a muscle, you don't use it, or limit it to basically playing police officer, you lose the edge. Put an army out in the field for even a few months, and the natural Darwinian processes take over. Put them out there for eight or nine years, and you will inevitably produce some top-notch NCOs and upper cadre officers, and then, if you want to put them in shitholes like the Congo, you've got guys who are used to bullets coming at them. What's more, fighting an enemy like the Taliban isn't at all like fighting armies of similar philosophy as we often did in WWII. You gain a whole new set of skills, not the least of which is learning the kind of field diplomacy that goes along with dealing with native friendlies.

Afghanistan has been a beautiful gift for our military, giving it a purpose, giving it the ultimate training ground. All we need to do is have the will to tell the faint-hearted to go find a toilet to piss in instead of their pants, and discard the inane ideas of peacekeeping, or at the very least put it in its place, some arm of the RCMP where the training is more in keeping. I know it sounds old-fashioned, maybe even colonial (though I don't advocate colonizing foreign territory), but I reject peacekeeping in favor of peacemaking. I look at how a small group of well-trained British SAS kicked a whole lot of ass in Sierra Leone, and it informs you that a lot of these rebel "armies" that cause so much woe in places like sub-Saharan Africa are only effective because they can dominate and terrorize relatively defenseless populations.

If Canada wants to help the world, moving into these places, killing the bad guys (and yes, people wielding machetes and lopping of limbs are bad guys) would be a good way to go about it. And if we really want to prevent atrocities like Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia, or more to the point today in Darfur, then I can tell you the effectiveness of these battle-hardened commanders in leading forces in to take on murderous bullies would be astounding. Then maybe we should think about moving into Somalia (oh I know, a place of terror for so many Yanks and Canucks), and rescuing the populace from the Islamist monsters who have taken over. Yes, we'll have some casualties, yes a few of our men and women will do nasty things (that's been a feature of war since our ape ancestors basically invented it, look at an invading chimp tribe), and yes, some civilians will get killed. But maybe we'll be able to help resurrect countries, as opposed to peacekeepers and NGOs holed up in fortresses doing little more than watch the goons do whatever they bloody well like.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is difficult to measure. It's just some impression you get.

No, I think there is tangible measurement in the most recent cycle for Iraq = Hell No!, Afghanistan = Hell Yes! Canadians actually championed Afghanistan as the morally superior way to go, only to become disillusioned by such a righteous cause and drawn out affair The Americans just wanted to bomb the crap out of Iraq and Afghanistan....revenge is simpler that way.

True, but many, many are. It IS funny as hell, when you consider it.

That's what the peanut gallery is for.

[Remiel]

...stuff...

There is some meritous stuff in there, but a lot of stuff that is really just wishful thinking as well. For instance, it would be nice if there was some convenient way to get battle hardened troops. But starting/joining wars you do not really want just to get a little better at the ones you do is crazy in todays environment.

Also, peacekeeping does need to be reinvented, but the idea that that can be carried out by people like the RCMP is just dumb. Peacekeepers work in war zones. RCMP is not capable of dealing with that, and they never will be, and never should be. If you need something between a solider and an cop, we should invent one, not try to shoehorn RCMP into a role they are not suited for at all.

[bloodyminded]

No, I think there is tangible measurement in the most recent cycle for Iraq = Hell No!, Afghanistan = Hell Yes! Canadians actually championed Afghanistan as the morally superior way to go, only to become disillusioned by such a righteous cause and drawn out affair The Americans just wanted to bomb the crap out of Iraq and Afghanistan....revenge is simpler that way.

No, there's still the stated "noble" etc., "moral" etc. naibe view of policy, and disinclination to face obvious truths.

I'm not arguing for Canadian righteousness; but simply laughing at the pitiable American variety.

That's what the peanut gallery is for.

To mock the dainty American patriotic-masturbators?

[bloodyminded]

There is some meritous stuff in there, but a lot of stuff that is really just wishful thinking as well. For instance, it would be nice if there was some convenient way to get battle hardened troops. But starting/joining wars you do not really want just to get a little better at the ones you do is crazy in todays environment.

It's morally insane.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, there's still the stated "noble" etc., "moral" etc. naibe view of policy, and disinclination to face obvious truths.

I'm not arguing for Canadian righteousness; but simply laughing at the pitiable American variety.

There's plenty of room for Canadian laughs as well. The comedy begins with/without force structure and procurements. We can witness real time angst over the planned purchase of multi-role fighter aircraft in another MLW thread, not only for the associated cost, but for the actual capability that might lead to another NATO engagement.

To mock the dainty American patriotic-masturbators?

...another predictable spasm of sexual petulance.

[bloodyminded]

There's plenty of room for Canadian laughs as well.

Great Godzilla on His Throne, BC, but we already agree on that point.

It's your delicacy about the well-known topic of American ignorance that is at issue here.

...another predictable spasm of sexual petulance.

I am reporting on the sexual petulance, not indulging in it. And yes, it's predictable; see how easily I predict it?

Edited July 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

There is some meritous stuff in there, but a lot of stuff that is really just wishful thinking as well. For instance, it would be nice if there was some convenient way to get battle hardened troops. But starting/joining wars you do not really want just to get a little better at the ones you do is crazy in todays environment.

It's not hard to see places where some major ass-kicking is required. With an attack by Somali-based Islamists in Uganda, I suggest Somalia is an awfully good idea.

Also, peacekeeping does need to be reinvented, but the idea that that can be carried out by people like the RCMP is just dumb. Peacekeepers work in war zones. RCMP is not capable of dealing with that, and they never will be, and never should be. If you need something between a solider and an cop, we should invent one, not try to shoehorn RCMP into a role they are not suited for at all.

If peacekeepers work in war zones, then they should have the freedom to meet the enemy in the field. Somalia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were immoral embarassments.

Edited July 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Argus]

It's not hard to see places where some major ass-kicking is required. With an attack by Somali-based Islamists in Uganda, I suggest Somalia is an awfully good idea.

Don't be absurd. Somalia is a shithole, worse even than Afghanistan. And it has exactly the same problems and would result in exactly the same situation. Western nations cannot win in places like this because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done to win.

Western liberals regard soldiers with suspicion and disdain, and can barely tolerate them being armed, much less using their weapons. But when their weapons actually harm civilians - which is absolutely inevitably in a guerrilla conflict, that's when the western liberal recoils in horror and swells up with self-righteous indignation!

Like it or not, the pointing the guns and RPGs, and planting the bombs will be the sons, brothers, cousins and husbands of all the women in bedsheets and the rest of their particular clan, and will be steadfastly supported by that clan/tribe in all they do. You cannot EVER win hearts and minds in a society like this because their hearts are devoted to their clan/tribal chiefs, and the complexity of their minds are barely above the level of their cattle.

Western troops in Afghanistan have increasingly been fighting with one arm tired firmly behind their backs by rules of engagement which won't tolerate the slightest possibility of a civilian (even a civilian who actively and knowingly supports the taliban) getting so much as a scratch by one of our bullets, rockets, shells or missiles.

And the local elders know damned well that within the next few years the westerners will leave. Their loyalty, as always, is to themselves, and they'll be making deals with the people they presume will be taking over when we leave. In five or six years the Taliban will be in power in Afghanistan again and everyone knows it.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Argus