Canada's cold shoulder to U.S.

[Black Dog]

Who would you define as a centrist and extreme right winger?

Whats Paul Martin?

Martin is a centerist with a tilt to the right. Ditto Clinton.

Bush is further down the right end of spectrum, largely due to his social stances and militaristic approach to foreign policy.

As for extreme right wingers, I think Lyndon Larouche and Ann Coulter fit that bill.

Though it could be another debate, why not allow a "pro US", right-wing leaning news agency within Canada?

There already is one. It's called CanWest Global. That said, there's nothing preventing anyone from starting such a network.

How do we know it to be a fallacious argument? To be honest, I have not seen evidence that proves it to be correct or incorrect. Do you have any?

The argument in question is that which claims criticism of Israeli (to use the most common example) policy is a form of anti-Semetism. It's fallacious because states (as represented by national governments) are not a race or ethnicity, even if the members of said government or the populace they represent are of a particular ethno-religious character. Basically, crticism of national policy can be racially motivated, but is not racially motivated necessarliy.

I'd say yes, untill Canada has a complete change in how we defend oursleves and to whom we trade with.

Is this a reciprocal agreement, then? After all, the U.S. relies quite heavily on Canada for imports. Does the fact that the eastern seaboard draws much of its electrical power from Canada give us the right to dictate U.S. policy?

Of course not: your position is rubbish. It is the kind of thinking employed by Mob protection rackets: we'll look out for you, but you must do what we say. Canada and the U.S. are neighbours and trading partners: Canada is not, and should not be, a vassal state.

Before the US invasion, would you call the UN mission in Iraq a sucess?

Absolutely. Through the program of UN weapons inspections starting in 1998, Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability had been verifiably eliminated. Kay's post-war report concluded Iraq had no significant weapons of mass destruction nor any effective programs to develop them in the months leading up to the invasion.

[Stoker]

That said, there's nothing preventing anyone from starting such a network.

There is already an exsiting network.........FOX and the only thing stopping that is the CRTC.

The argument in question is that which claims criticism of Israeli (to use the most common example) policy is a form of anti-Semetism. It's fallacious because states (as represented by national governments) are not a race or ethnicity, even if the members of said government or the populace they represent are of a particular ethno-religious character. Basically, crticism of national policy can be racially motivated, but is not racially motivated necessarliy.

So what your saying is that sometimes a nation may have valid reasons to dislike another nation, and sometimes their dislike stems from nothing more then ignorance?

Is this a reciprocal agreement, then? After all, the U.S. relies quite heavily on Canada for imports. Does the fact that the eastern seaboard draws much of its electrical power from Canada give us the right to dictate U.S. policy?

No, it's not a reciprocal agreement, we need them more then they need us.

Canada

Exports - partners:

US 86.6%, Japan 2.1%, UK 1.4% (2003 est.)

Imports - partners:

US 60.6%, China 5.6%, Japan 4.1% (2003 est.)

United States

Exports - partners:

Canada 23.4%, Mexico 13.5%, Japan 7.2%, UK 4.7%, Germany 4% (2003 est.)

Imports - partners:

Canada 17.4%, China 12.5%, Mexico 10.7%, Japan 9.3%, Germany 5.3% (2003 est.)

Of course not: your position is rubbish. It is the kind of thinking employed by Mob protection rackets: we'll look out for you, but you must do what we say. Canada and the U.S. are neighbours and trading partners: Canada is not, and should not be, a vassal state.

And who did the Mob tend to pick on more? The strong or the weak?

Canadians choose to be weak, and to allow the Americans to take care of us. Why should the Americans respect us, if we don't respect ourselves?

And "should nots" don't count, we are a vassal state of the United States, which some Canadians need to come to terms with, then decide if they want to improve relations with the States or further the negativity.

Absolutely. Through the program of UN weapons inspections starting in 1998, Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability had been verifiably eliminated. Kay's post-war report concluded Iraq had no significant weapons of mass destruction nor any effective programs to develop them in the months leading up to the invasion.

What year did the inspections stop orginally?

WRT 90-95% of the WMDs gone, if I get let out on probation, and the court orders a no drinking order, and I have a six-pack of Molson in my fridge, am I breaking the law? Is the legal system working?

[caesar]

Canadians choose to be weak, and to allow the Americans to take care of us. Why should the Americans respect us, if we don't respect ourselves?

And just how are the Americans protecting us and from whom. I think they are bringing more threat TO North American.

[Slavik44]

Why should the Americans respect us, if we don't respect ourselves?

I have a better question, do you respect those "follower type people, you see them all the time really groupies...they think what the think because their leader thinks it, they do what they do because their leader does it, they say what they say because their leader says it. I am going to tell you something I don't respect those people and I think I speak for many people when i say that. Likewise I don't think anyone will respect another member to the America groupie and the axis of ignorance. I totaly agree with you why should anyone respect us if we don't respect ourselves, and if we run around like a slut or act like a whore no one is going to respect us. If you want respect demand it, what you want is not respect. It is in no way related to respect, or achieving respect. This isn't being anti-american or pro-suddam this is about saying we don't belive in what your doing and we don't belive in how you are doing what you are doing

and we will not participate, standing up for yourself is where you get respect. that being said Canada isn't perfect and certainly could use some improving in certain areas of foriegn affiars, but jsut jumping in and enslaving ourselves to America is not gonna cut it, it is JUST as bad if not worse that what we have now.

[caesar]

Why should the Americans respect us, if we don't respect ourselves?

I think most Canadians do respect ourselves and our country"a independent stand to stay out of Iraq. We have been proven to have been correct. It is America that illegally invaded a country that was disarming, that held prisoners without giving them their Geneva convention rights; that has tortured these same prisoners.

I think it is Americans that should be unable to have any respect for their country's actions and many are.

[Big Blue Machine]

I talked to some Americans when I was in Washington, and they are still mad at us for not joining the Iraq war.

We Canadians respect ourselves, but we aren't screaming out with patriotism, like the Americans. We are self-confident, and reserved.

[daniel]

A CBC reporter (I forgot his name, but his report was aired) went throught the US asking Americans what they thought about Canada deciding not to join the war. He found that "ordinary Americans" didn't care because they acknowledged that Canada was a sovereign country allowed to make its own decisions.

Those people in Washington probably had a lot of political partisan influences that others across the country wasn't exposed to.

[Black Dog]

That said, there's nothing preventing anyone from starting such a network.

There is already an exsiting network.........FOX and the only thing stopping that is the CRTC.

This was done to death elsewhere, but FOX is not banned in Canada. CanWest Global hlds the rights to launch Foxnews Canada (which must have 35% Canadaian content), while the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) applied to the CRTC in June to add Fox News to the list of non-Canadian channels eligible for digital carriage here, a move oppossed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), whose members include CanWest Global.

So what your saying is that sometimes a nation may have valid reasons to dislike another nation, and sometimes their dislike stems from nothing more then ignorance?

It's possible. Continuing with the example of Israel, it is possible that criticism of Israel may be based in anti-Semetic sentiment, sentiment that remains all too prevelant. However, criticism can also be rooted in a valid disagreement over political policy (for instance, few would argue that the global rejection of South Africa's apartheid policy in the 1980's was based on "anti-Boerism"). The problem is when defenders of said policies equate the two as a means of stifling debate and deflecting attention

from the real issues.

No, it's not a reciprocal agreement, we need them more then they need us

Fcat is, they still need us. Fact is, we're an autonomous country responsible primarily for the well-being of our own citizens. When that responsibility conflicts with the relationship with the U.S., the former should still take priority.

Canadians choose to be weak, and to allow the Americans to take care of us. Why should the Americans respect us, if we don't respect ourselves?

How do we "choose" to be weak? By not joining in when Uncle Sam demands we kill brown people? By not bloating our military budget?

What year did the inspections stop orginally?

October 1998, when UNSCOM inspectors were expelled due to to the prescence of CIA operatives in their number.

WRT 90-95% of the WMDs gone, if I get let out on probation, and the court orders a no drinking order, and I have a six-pack of Molson in my fridge, am I breaking the law? Is the legal system working

MYour analogy would be more accurate if instea dof a six-pack, you had a 15 year old mini-bottle of Bailey's. Would you still be in violation of the letter of the law? Yes. However, would you be considered a threat? Probably not.

[Argus]

America was a bloodsucking multinational corporation

Yep, I think he had a point.

I don't think you really think much.

[Argus]

1]  Trudeau was not extreme left.  To say such a thing is to begin from the position of a person who has no sense of the scope and nature of political opinion in the world.

As in all things, this depends on the scale you choose to weigh him on. I think Trudeau was very much on the left, but to a degree restricted by the society he was in. He admired Castro, and many of his policies, and would have instituted more of them here had he been allowed to do so. You later call Marx and Engel extreme left by way of excusing Trudeau. That is innacurate. We don't call people like these "leftists", we call them Communists. On a scale which holds Communism just off (the scale) to the left and Facism off to the right Trudeau was very far on the left.

7]  What does Mr. Beichman mean by equating (alleged) anti-semitism with (falsely alleged) anti-Americanism?

I think he is suggesting that the new anti-semites of the left and anti-Americans today tend to have the same sort of mentality, and, indeed, tend to be the same people. The left in Canada tends both to hate Americans and despise Israel, and many, many of them make little or no distinction between Jews and Israel, because Jews generally support Israel.

10] First, Al-Jazeera is not anti-semitic.  It reports on anti-semites' activities and their motivations.

This is either gross ignorance, or evidence that you yourself are an anti-semite. Al-Jazeera is most certainly anti-semitic. The reason it's not being broadcast here is that no rebroadcaster wants to be responsible for the required monitoring, and then explain away the gross anti-semitic content and endure subsequent penalties under Canada's hate laws.

Mr. Beichman obviously hates Canada and is willing to spout the most egregious propaganda against

Beichman's opinion column was, taken in its entireity, garbage, I'll grant you that.

[Argus]

Many times in the past, Canada has gone beyond it's obligations to aid the United States.

The examples you cite are trivial, and embarrassing.

The US-UK coalition has failed to follow the process of the UN and not that the UN itself had failed.  The War is a slap in the face of all war veterans and war survivors since WWII.  When the UN was setup (in replacement of the League of Nations), its objective was to be a forum to resolve international conflicts at the discussion table instead of the battlefield so that the lives of women, children and young men would no longer be wasted

The UN was set up in optimism and ignorance, where it was hoped a few dozen nations, having endured WW2, for the most part together, would be able to settle their differences. It failed almost from the start. As soon as it emerged that the Soviets were enemies, and that a big chunk of those on the UN were nothing but slave states, the UN stopped having effect. When the number of members balooned past 100, most of them run by venal, corrupt, murderous tyrants - who, incidentally, were not above selling their votes - they ceased to have any kind of moral authority.

[Argus]

Well said Daniel.

I admire Castro much more than someone like Bush. He may be a "dictator" but I will take a benevolent dictator over a egomaniac like Bush any day.

You - don't actually know anything at all about Castro, do you?

[Argus]

Do you have any real examples where the UN didn't fail?

Do you have an real examples where the USA has been right. Where they have treated any one prisoners or friends fairly. Where they have succeeded in reducing the threat of terrorism instead of just aggravating the situation??????

I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed you dodged the question. The fact is the UN has been all-but useless except in a few cases where the US or UK used it as a shield for doing what needed to be done - as in Korea. On its own, the UN has failed miserably, as in Somalia, Palestine, Lebanon, Rwanda, Liberia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and now Sudan.

[Argus]

What is your definition of the extreme left? Marx? Engles? Or are they just moderates?

Most of your comments don't seem to amount to an actual reply to mine, but regarding those that do ...

Marx and Engels would certainly qualify IMO as extreme left. But there are many contemporary examples of leaders left of Trudeau: Castro, the leaders of China, the Soviet Bloc countries, many European social democrats, etc.

Uhm, if the only people you can actually name who were left of Trudeau were Communist murderers then I think it's pretty safe to say he was extreme left.

[Argus]

Probably pointing out that based on US support towards Israel, they could be one in the same?

This is an all-too common line of argument, the primary purpose of which is to dicredit opponents of national policies. However, it's a fallacious argument, for one can critcize national policy without being tainted by racism.

This is certainly true. However, I have noticed a somewhat disturbing lack of consistency in many of those who so adamantly criticise Israel. That is that they are quick to scream and howl when Israel does something, but mute when the Palestinians or Arabs - or anyone else in the world except the Americans - do the same or worse. Forgive me for wondering, then, at just what their motivation is for their constant criticism of Israel.

[Argus]

How do we know it to be a fallacious argument? To be honest, I have not seen evidence that proves it to be correct or incorrect. Do you have any?

The argument in question is that which claims criticism of Israeli (to use the most common example) policy is a form of anti-Semetism. It's fallacious because states (as represented by national governments) are not a race or ethnicity, even if the members of said government or the populace they represent are of a particular ethno-religious character. Basically, crticism of national policy can be racially motivated, but is not racially motivated necessarliy.

Necessarily?

No, there are plenty of reasons to criticise Israel and Israelis, particularly for their poor choice in leaders. That being said, while not everyone who criticises Israel is a Jew hater all Jew haters criticise Israel, if you take my meaning.

Israel is nowhere _near_ the worst violator of human rights. Its treatment of rebelious Palestinians is, to be honest, far gentler than they'd get at the hands of any Arab government. And there are many peoples around the world far worse off than the Palestinians, at the hands of far more brutal and murderous regimes. That being the inarguable reality, one has to wonder at the massive amount of venom and diatribes directed at Israel from the western left.

Something under 2000 Palestinians have died in the last five years of the Intifada. Iraq's dictator was murdering that many per year and nobody much seemed to care. Syria's dictator slaughtered somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 people in crushing a rebelion there. No one cared. Russia lined artillery pieces up wheel to wheel and bombarded Chechnyan cities, and the left yawned and scratched their collective asses. Massive brutalities take place in China every year, as well as rebelious provinces of India, not to mention throughout Africa. So why the left's fixation on condeming and demonizing Israel? Perhaps its just coincidence that Israel is the only Jewish state?

[Black Dog]

This is certainly true. However, I have noticed a somewhat disturbing lack of consistency in many of those who so adamantly criticise Israel. That is that they are quick to scream and howl when Israel does something, but mute when the Palestinians or Arabs - or anyone else in the world except the Americans - do the same or worse. Forgive me for wondering, then, at just what their motivation is for their constant criticism of Israel.

This is a common canard and certainly meaningless without some actual evidence. No one on the left with an ounce of integrity would defend, for example, suicide bombings, but would acknowledge that such acts are for the most part symptomatic of the larger issue of the Occupation.

That being said, while not everyone who criticises Israel is a Jew hater all Jew haters criticise Israel, if you take my meaning.

That was my point.

Israel is nowhere _near_ the worst violator of human rights. Its treatment of rebelious Palestinians is, to be honest, far gentler than they'd get at the hands of any Arab government. And there are many peoples around the world far worse off than the Palestinians, at the hands of far more brutal and murderous regimes. That being the inarguable reality, one has to wonder at the massive amount of venom and diatribes directed at Israel from the western left.

First, I've always found the "well our brutal human rights violations aren't as brutal as others'" to be a rather shoddy defense.

Israel may not be the worst, but it's pretty bad, especially for a nation that is so often touted as "the only democracy in the Middle East".

If Israel is indeed a "progressive democracy", would it not be appropriate to judge it by the standards of other progressive western-style democracies instead of by those of oppressive totalitarian regimes?

I expect that the "amount of venom" (an extremely problematic term that I'll let slide for now) directed at Israel is due to the fact we expect better of democracies than to subject a segment of humanity within its juridstiction to such deplorable treatment. Also, the very nature of Israel as a nominal democracy means it's more likely to change than a place like, say, Syria.

The other angle is that the argument "why Israel?" can just as easily be construed as an attempt to shield Israeli actions from scrutiny, a diversion. The flip side to this is "Why not Israel?"

Finally, most leftists harbour no love for repressive regimes, period. The idea that criticism of one country must also be accompanied by a blanket condemnation of any number of others is just plain silly.

So why the left's fixation on condeming and demonizing Israel? Perhaps its just coincidence that Israel is the only Jewish state?

It should be noted that "the right" has given the examples you mentioned equally short shrift. Indeed, it is the political establishment, and not the left, that supports and does business with Russia, China, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan etc etc etc. So unless concern for human rights is only allowed to be displayed by people of certain left-wing political convictions, your argument is disingenuous.

[Stoker]

If Israel is indeed a "progressive democracy", would it not be appropriate to judge it by the standards of other progressive western-style democracies instead of by those of oppressive totalitarian regimes?

You make a very good point here, in that I too agree that you can't judge Israel in the "same court of public opinion" as that of a North Korea or a China.

But where I disagree, is in that we can't very well judge Israel in the "same court of public opinion" as that of Canada, the United States and other "western democracies", with the reason being, most other "western democracies" don't face the same daily threat that the Israels face.

As I'm sure you remember/know of the FLQ crisis......remember the war measures act? Could that also have been called a human rights violation?

[ft.niagara]

Mr. Beichman obviously hates Canada and is willing to spout the most egregious propaganda against

Beichman's opinion column was, taken in its entireity, garbage, I'll grant you that.

As an American, this is all about perspective, and Mr. Beichman's column was not garbage, you seem to have agreed with most every point, and certainly has provoked alot of self analysis here. I am glad to see that there is not only the one sided hate America stuff I would have expected. I live in Buffalo, and I think your people are very nice when I visit, but when your government speaks, over the years it has been antiamerican in my view. Perhaps the French influence?

------------------------

As far as Israel, that could and should be covered in a different thread. Should Israel Exist? could be its title.

[caesar]

your government speaks, over the years it has been antiamerican in my view. Perhaps the French influence?

Sorry buddy but look at your own government and its actions. Why is America the most hated nation now. They used to be very much respected. Trade agreements seem to be ignored and/or abuse by your government and lobby groups. Your governments claim to want to bring democracy to other countries (whether they want it or not) but refuses to act democratically at the international stage. (invading Iraq when the majority said NO) I could go on. I too have many friend that are American. I will lose much more respect for Americans if they re-elect that despot Bush.

[ft.niagara]

Your governments claim to want to bring democracy to other countries (whether they want it or not) but refuses to act democratically at the international stage.  (invading Iraq when the majority said NO)  I could go on.  I too have many friend that are American.  I will lose much more respect for Americans if they re-elect that despot Bush.

Buddy yourself, When it involves the security of the country, what is this international democracy. No one elected the United Nations to be the international government. Go loose whatever respect you claim to have now, so much BS really.

You experienced to a small degree what a bioterror attack would be like: SARS. The US was your best friend then. The CDC said it was ok to go to Toronto when the WHO said no. If the event were ever proven intentional, what would Canada have done? Probably nothing. Ask the US for help. Let the US take care of it.

And the most hated country in the world is bogus. It is kind of like bringing out the hack Nazi, Antisemite, Homophobe labels when your mind moves to idle. Mindless bullcrap, but in your case, the sad thing is they probably teach it in the schools up there.

[Guest eureka]

Over the years, you can go right back to "Reciprocity" times, Governments in Canada have been too pro-American when they speak. They have rarely represented te opinions of the people in this.

There seems to be glimmer of hope that this is changing. Canadians are finally finding themselves to be different and not merely second-class Americans. Government may be catching up with the people here.

That is not anti-American: it is being Canadian.

[ft.niagara]

I have a hard time understanding Canada's position, and I have tried. Your flag flies in the center of Buffalo. Both national anthems are played at hockey games???? The balance of trade is in your favor. You spend nothing for national defense because you know you do not have to. Our national anthem was booed at a Canadian game. Someone on this board said that the US only got into WWII only after attacked, I presume complaining because Canada was pulled in first because of England. Go figure, complain when US goes to war, and complain when it doesn't go to war. Your PM Cretian was so antiamerican, members of his cabinet were quoted making rediculous statements about our President. You have Canadian content laws which disallows American publications because they are not Canadian, go figure that. And on and on.

On the issue of Iraq, forgetting that no WMD were found, there was more than reasonable expectation that they would be. Forget about lieing, that is bogus. New York was attacked, and 3000 people died, and Canada did not help. All the other english speaking contries in the world of importance helped except Canada, even a little. Canadians have an identity crisis. They do not want to be Americans, and in their attempt to not be Americans, as if that is a good thing, they seem to want to antagonize also.

[Guest eureka]

Canadians complain that America did not enter the war with some justification. Britain and Canada bore the brunt of the cost, economic and personal, in that war to save democracy.

America did not enter the war earlier because there was too large a community of German sympathizers and the government need an excuse to do so. It should be remembered in this that America exists today because Britain protected it against the threats of the European powers. The Monroe doctrine was enforced by the British navy since America was far too weak to withstand attack by the major European powers.The complaint about America going to war now is that the war is totally unjustified and amounts to butchery of Iraquis who do not have the means to properly defend themselves.

Chretien never gave the slightest indication of being anti-America. He was certainly not pro-Bush's megalomania. That is a very different thing. The whole world is that.

We can't forget that no WMD were found. War should not be waged and thousands killed because a gang of thugs in Washington lie to the world about waht was known. The right measures were being taken. Even so, it was always an absurdity to claim that Iraq was a threat to America. The only threat that poor country could be was in the risk it might further damage itself by turning down the taps to spite America.

Your claim that Canada did not help when New York had a terrorist incident is offensive in the exterme. Canada gave significant help: no other country, English speaking or other did so much. That we did not swallow the Bush lies about Saddam and Al Quaeda is to Canada's credit as it stood by the ideals of civilization and not allow itself to be a satrapy of an Imperial and bellicose America.

What antagonism comes out of Canada is a revulsion against the barbaric behaviour of the America administration after the WTC. When your government blamed Canada for allowing the terrorists into the USA - all of whom actually entered the USA directly and were trained there: when your government abandoned the "War" on terror to pursue its previously articulated dream of establishing American hegemony in the Middle East: when it flouted the world to do this and attempted, first to subvert the United Nations and then to destroy it, you lost all claim to morality and to support.

What the motives of Britain and Australia were we may never know and I don't really care now. Their peoples have made it clear that they did not support their governments.

[caesar]

. New York was attacked, and 3000 people died, and Canada did not help.

Yes, who landed all the airplanes and put the people up and fed them when none were allowed to land in the USA.

Canadians sents mega millions of dollars to New York to help with the recovery. Thanks a lot.

Canada joined in the war on terrorism. We were and many still are in Afghanistan.

The invasion of Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism. In fact, that was a side trip AWAY from the real villians. Remember Osama?????? America's new buddy, Pakistan condoned (as did the USA) Pakisatani scientist selling nuclear technologies and parts to the unstable nations unfriendly to the USA!!!!!!! but that is okay eh???