Canada's cold shoulder to U.S.

[August1991]

Do not presume that those supporting your warped view are Canadians; it is not unusual for American to come on our forums masquerading as Canadian when they are in truth American.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I thought diversity and dissent were encouraged in Canada. I am mistaken.

I didn't know that Canadian citizenship requires an anti-American opinion.

As I have said elsewhere, the anti-Americanism in English Canada is similar to the anti-English attitudes in Quebec. Both are small-minded and unbecoming. They are thankfully not universal.

[Guest eureka]

You can do better than that, Argus. As for books, I wager that I have more in my house than the vast majority of "ordinary" people. Mind you, that is not an admission of ordinariness.

[Guest eureka]

August! It is a matter of American unilateralism The announced doctrine of this administration, following the "American Century" document, is that America will act unilaterally where and when it seems to be in its interest.

Far from being anti-American, I suspect that I have a better feel and opinion of America than those who support its recent actions. It is the betrayal of America and its ideals that I deplore as well as the consequences for the world.

I do think that Kosovo was also an illegal act. It is, however, an example of the community of nations acting in concert to deal with the rogue actions of states. That function should be in the purview of the United Nations. What has to be done is to find a way to allow the UN to be the policeman while respecting the sovereignty of nations.

[caesar]

didn't know that Canadian citizenship requires an anti-American opinion.

I don't consider our opinion of this Iraq fiasco and the attitude of the USA to Canada and other countries as being anti American. It means that we believe in honest actions and allowing other nations to rule themselves. It means we do not believe young people should be sent out to die or be maimed in an illegal and unjust war.

I still have hopes that America will steer a better course after a regime change is effected.

[Argus]

Only Albertans agree with the USA point of view;

I'm in Ottawa, and while I"m no fan of Bush I generally agree with the "USA point of view".

there are many Americans in Alberta and they have the majority of our oil and have to a great degree caught the American disease of worshipping the almighty dollar. 

Do you know that Americans are generally far more giving to charities than Canadians? They also volunteer more.

Do not presume that those supporting your warped view are Canadians; it is not unusual for American to come on our forums masquerading as Canadian when they are in truth American.

Jesus, do you really think Americans care that much what you think?

[Argus]

It means that we believe in honest actions and allowing other nations to rule themselves. 

Query. By "allowing other nations to rule themselves" what you mean is "allowing brutal, murderous tyrants who rule by the gun to do whatever they want to "their people"", right?

Isn't this just a broader, more international version of the old attitude that it was no one's else's business what was done within a family? Ie, if there was wife beating or child molesting going on, well hey, it's not for us to intervene.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Query. By "allowing other nations to rule themselves" what you mean is "allowing brutal, murderous tyrants who rule by the gun to do whatever they want to "their people"", right?

You make a valid point here, but who decides

1. Accountability

2. Appropriate punishment?

It certainly should not be decided 'unilaterally', such as the illegal invasions by the US of Panam, and more recently Iraq, for example.

Sadly, the UN should be the only 'legal' body with this kind of power, yet it relies on it's member states to 'multilaterally agree' when their interests are often in conflict.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Query. By "allowing other nations to rule themselves" what you mean is "allowing brutal, murderous tyrants who rule by the gun to do whatever they want to "their people"", right?

You make a valid point here, but who decides

1. Accountability

2. Appropriate punishment?

It certainly should not be decided 'unilaterally', such as the illegal invasions by the US of Panam, and more recently Iraq, for example.

Sadly, the UN should be the only 'legal' body with this kind of power, yet it relies on it's member states to 'multilaterally agree' when their interests are often in conflict.

If there were an international body we could turn to then that would be splendid. Unfortunately, the United Nations is, for the most part, made up of the very people the world would be better off without; ie, brutal thugs who came to power illegally and violently and stay in power despite the will of the people over whom they rule. I find it highly unlikely such a group will ever be supportive of removing illegitimate governments.

What the world needs is an international body made up only of democracies. It would have the only real claim to widespread worldwide representation of the will of the peoples of this planet. It would, of course, be imperfect, but it would certainly have more legitimacy than the United Nations.

In the abscence of any legitimate body I'm afraid we're very much in the old west, in vigilante mode, without any real law except in the event groups of people (nations) band together.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

In the abscence of any legitimate body I'm afraid we're very much in the old west, in vigilante mode, without any real law except in the event groups of people (nations) band together.

Groups of nations is what the UN is. Many of the 'tyrants' enjoy full support of 'the democracies' in exchange for resource access, favourable trade regs, and occasionally a favourable vote in the UN. I think the UN can work (Because any 'banding together of nations' will just suffer the same problems as the existing UN) if there was more transparency. For example, when one permanent member (with veto power) repeatedly 'stands alone' against the international community regarding it's actions, shouldn't the majority of the members assume that the '1' must be wrong?

[August1991]

Is this what you really want?

While Secretary of State Colin Powell has said the United States is not in the business of buying votes on the Security Council, a senior State Department official told reporters Wednesday, "We want to be nice to people who are nice, and good to the people who are good to us."

The votes of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea matter a great deal. All three countries are officially on the fence and their support will be needed to pass a resolution quickly that would effectively authorize a war to topple the Iraqi leader.

UPI article

Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin readied to fly later today to Angola, Cameroon and Guinea to urge them to reject a U.S.-backed U.N. draft resolution giving Baghdad a March 17 deadline to disarm.

Houston Chronicle

Apparently, the French were more successful.

For fun, here is the flag of Angola.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

In the abscence of any legitimate body I'm afraid we're very much in the old west, in vigilante mode, without any real law except in the event groups of people (nations) band together.

Groups of nations is what the UN is. Many of the 'tyrants' enjoy full support of 'the democracies' in exchange for resource access, favourable trade regs, and occasionally a favourable vote in the UN.

Those tyrants might well enjoy the "support" of democracies on occasion, but few actually enjoy the support of their own people. When they speak at the United Nations they speak for themselves, with little care about their people want or what is in their peope's best interest. And as I said, the UN can hardly be expected to restrain illegitimate governments when most of its members have no legitimacy but the gun.

I think the UN can work (Because any 'banding together of nations' will just suffer the same problems as the existing UN) if there was more transparency.  For example, when one permanent member (with veto power) repeatedly 'stands alone' against the international community regarding it's actions, shouldn't the majority of the members assume that the '1' must be wrong?

I don't believe the US often does stand alone when it vetoes something in the Security Council. Perhaps you can find me a few examples of where it did.

[ft.niagara]

I still have hopes that America will steer a better course after a regime change is effected.

Caesar, I do not see a regime change in 2004. I will vote for Bush, and my wife also, and she is a democrat. I think the democrats could have won, with the right candidate, but I do not think Kerry is him. Presidents are usually former state governors. Clinton, Bush, Reagan were all former governors. There also needs to a little bit of charisma, and Kerry does not have it. Then throw in the Viet Nam antiwar baggage, plus the reporting for duty commedy routine, and you have a loser. Mind you, he really has to try to lose. He has a lock on New York, California, and Illinois, with their big cities, which means he is very unpopular with the common American. In Bush, I see someone who rose to the occasion, and in Kerry, a challenger not worthy of knocking him off his position as President.

But, surprises do happen. Turman beat Dewey.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I will post a few examples, but it is quite easy to find on google. The UN website requires some navigation, but is 'the horse's mouth', as they say, and not the opposite end of the horse, as a lot claim.

www.iht.com/articles/512112.html

usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Jan/29-370155.html

aztlan.net/usunproxyofisrael.htm -

www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

This last one is from "The Jewish Virtual Library", and is exacly as listed in the UN site. I suggest you explore the UN site, though.

Interesting also is security council res 44/240, December 29 1989, condemning the US for invading Panama, as a 'flagrant violation of international law', while the US vetoed it and invoked UN article 51, "the right of self-defence" against the 'aggressor', Panama.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._v27/ai_8886407

[caesar]

There also needs to a little bit of charisma, and Kerry does not have it.

And you think Bush has charisma.

[caesar]

Argus doesn't believe that the USA used its veto alone often.. Just use search UN veto USA to find many sites with long lists. Here is one of interest"

Note: During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemcal weapons. On 3/21/1986, the Security Council President, "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).

The United States voted AGAINST the issuance of this statement.

How soon we forget our old friends eh

[August1991]

The Soviet Union used the veto at first. From the 1980s on, the US used it primarily to shield Israel against pro-Palestinian votes.

History of UN Security Council Vetoes

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse

12/20/2002 12-1 (US) with 2 abstentions (Bulgaria and Cameroon)

I find it hard to believe the US could veto this one, yet... AIPAC is 'the world's most powerful lobby'.

[caesar]

The Soviet Union used the veto at first. From the 1980s on, the US used it primarily to shield Israel against pro-Palestinian votes

Wrong. from what I have seen the USA veto has been used to protect Israel and Saddam from taking responsibility for their illegal actions. They have seen the light with Saddam (or perhaps the oil) when will they see that allowing Israel to get away with flagrant abuses of International law is counter productive and will only keep the middle east in turmoil.

Just check out a list of Israel violations; it is a very poor record. I, too, used to think Israel was the "good guys" just like I used to believe of the USA. Did I get my eyes opened due to the invasion of Iraq. I found it hard to believe that this was our "good neighbour" acting in such a manner. Invading a country that was cooperating wirh the UN weapons inspectors. They should not have abandoned the concentration on the war on terrorism for this side excursion for oil, revenge or whatever

[caesar]

In attempting to justify its invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration claimed that the credibility of the United Nations Security Council and its resolutions would be at stake if the enforcement arm of the world body did not authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime. Critics, however, correctly pointed out that Iraq was not the only Middle Eastern state to defy such resolutions. Israel, it was noted, by even the most conservative interpretation, is in violation of no less than thirty-five UN Security Council resolutions, more than any other nation. These critics observed how the Bush administration was not only not threatening an invasion of Israel, but had pledged to bloc the imposition of sanctions and other measures to ensure Israeli compliance with these resolutions and to continue to provide Israel with large-scale military and economic assistance despite its ongoing violations.

[August1991]

Wrong. from what I have seen the USA veto has been used to protect Israel and Saddam from taking responsibility for their illegal actions.

I can understand the argument of the US protecting Israel. But where are the US vetoes protecting Saddam? Huh?

Incidentally, is it not rather pathetic that the Arab states constantly use the UN to propose resolutions that are vetoed by the US. "It was a moral victory," they claim. The Arab world has had too many "moral victories".

They use a body which respects diverse viewpoints (when their own societies rarely do that officially) to fight an obviously losing battle (while some of their own societies suffer much graver issues).

If the Palestinians had sat down and negotiated with the Israelis in the early 1950s, they would now be far better off than they will ever be even if they were to obtain the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem.

[Black Dog]

(originally posted by Stoker)

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.

So? Respect for human rights should be a universal characteristic of liberal democracies. Or are we to say because Israel faces certain security issues (I'll leave the question of whether these issues are, again, a symptom of a broader problem), they should be allowed to suspend whatever pretext of respect for human rights and dignity and behave like Syria or any other totalitarian, antidemocratic, state?

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?

Yes. But not near the scale as what we see in Israel. Trudeau, for example, didn't bomb Quebec City, didn't demolish the homes of seperatists and hand the land over to Anglophone federalists.

And what evidence would you like? We get almost daily reports from Palestine. When was the last time you heard one from Chechnia? When was the last time you heard one from China? I'd say about half our foreign news for the last several years has come from Israel. Nobody seems to care very much about the brutality being inflicted on other peoples.

What doe sthis have to do with the left? Leftists don't own the media, nor do they dictate its content. major corporations do.

Oh richly ironic. You say no one would defend them, then go on to attempt to excuse them. Yet none of you ever make excuses for a tiny state of Jews surrounded by a massive sea of vicious, hostile Arabs who have attacked them again and again.

Now I know I'm not responsible for your inability to understand nuance, but I'm really sick of this b.s. argument. Trying to understand the causes of terrorism is not "excusing" it.

As for your racist construct("massive sea of vicious, hostile Arabs "), Israel has signed peace treaties with most of its Arab neighbours. There hasn't been an Arab Israeli war for more han 25 years.

My point here is not to defend Israel but to point out the hypocrisy of people who will pass over mass slaughter and torture to jump up and down in horor and point at comparatively minor abuses instead.

Since you've been unable to show any instances of the people you are attacking "pass(ing) over mass slaughter and torture ", your premise is flawed.

Israel wouldn't even get into the top fifty abusers of human rights if the list was put up fairly. People seem to forget that unlike most other states most of Israel's violence is provoked by Palestinian violence. Where are the mass marches against India for its brutal repression of seperatists in Kashmir and Punjab? Where are the screams of outrage over the repression of Muslims in China? Why don't we see daily videos from Chechnia, showing the murder and brutality being inflicted by the Russians?

"Provoked by Palestinian violence": bollocks.

Funny how the only reason people are aware of these activities is through the efforts of dilligent humanitarian workers. It's never the western media (again, not left) or the political establishment. I agree: there should be mopre outrgage over global injustice. When can we expect to hear it from the right?

No. Because western democracies are fat, happy and safe. And so their people have no concept of what it is like to be vastly outnumbered and surrounded by religious fanatics who want them dead.

This is the same old bullshit argument that claims Israel's surival is hanging by a thread. It's a lie. Israel has the largest, most modern military in the region, the unflinching backing of a global superpower, and nuclear weapons with which to defend itself. 3 million poverty stricken Palestinians confined to tiny patches of land are no threat to the existence of Israel.

You are making excuses for state terroism.

Oh really? How old are you? Because I go back long enough to remember when "most leftists" were campaigning daily against human rights violations throughout the world - except in Communist countries, where they excused it, justified it, or claimed it was all made up or "CIA propaganda". So don't give me any crap about how the left doesn't tolerate repressive regimes.

Your personal anecdotes are worth squat to me.

Ah, but you're supposed to be better than the right, remember? The "right" are supposed to be hard-hearted capitalists who only care for making a buck. You're the pure, noble, caring ideology. Isn't that the way it goes?

Whatever.

But if the right shows no great inclinationi to criticise China it also shows no great need to attack Israel. The Left, on the other hand, is fixated on Israel. So again the question is? Why? And the answer, certainly for a lot of them is "Jews".

So your logic is: it's better to excuse all atrocities than to call attention to some. Really, I can't imagine what kind of moral and intellectual gymnastics are required to reach such a dubious conclusion.

Oh and this:

The left are just closet antisemite. You can not call them that because they are liberal, and liberal is supposed to be by definition projewish. Actually, they are schizophrenic, they are this one day, and that the next.

and this...

Actually, I kind of enjoyed the pictures. Those fellows were there because they were bad. They were not there because they were in the Iraq military, but because they were bad guys. Maybe a bomber or two. I really liked the naked group hug. They needed a little bonding time. Is that the torturing you refer to?

are the products of a noxious, ignorant mind. I would suggest that we refrain from giving this piece of crap the time of day.

The pictures of naked guys in a pile were a lot less revolting than the picture of that Somalian guy with his face all swollen and bloody, his neck being held by a wooden bar, his hands tied up - before Canadian soldiers finished beating him to death.

How about the videos (still unreleased) featuring guards sodomizing young boys and raping the women? How about the beatings, dog attacks, sexual assaults?

u actually have no knowledge, not a clue about who these people were or why they were there. This was, I understand, a special cell block in that prison used for the people who were considered the worst of the prisoners there. I suggest to you that there certainly WAS a reason they were in that cell block.

You are the one with no clue. US intelligence officers told the Red Cross that between 70 and 90 per cent of imnates were civilians arrested by mistake.

If there were an international body we could turn to then that would be splendid. Unfortunately, the United Nations is, for the most part, made up of the very people the world would be better off without; ie, brutal thugs who came to power illegally and violently and stay in power despite the will of the people over whom they rule. I find it highly unlikely such a group will ever be supportive of removing illegitimate governments.

The United Nations has no powers beyond what is granted to it by its membership. Most power rests with the Security Council.

If the Palestinians had sat down and negotiated with the Israelis in the early 1950s, they would now be far better off than they will ever be even if they were to obtain the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem.

The land in question (west bank and gaza) was, at the time, occupied by Jordan and Egypt, which lost the land in the 1967 war. Furthermore, most Palestinians in the territories are descendents of refugees who fled or were expelled afte rIsrael's formation.

[The Terrible Sweal]

A couple thousand, eh? How many were convicted of something?

It depends on whether or not you think being an intellectual, an anti-communist or a "counter-revolutionary" is a capital crime.

The short answer to your question would be, "about as many as were convicted of something and executed by Hitler and Stalin."

That doesn't seem very believable, considering the differnces in scale.

[Newfie Canadian]

I haven't read all of the posts here, but I believe much of the chill in US/Canada relations came from Pres. Bush. There have been snubs galore. Now, that's not to say that members of the Canadian government have been the greatest, see Carolyn Parrish, but Bush has been cold to Canada from day 1.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

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

Whats Paul Martin?

It's all relative of course, but I'd say the Peron regime was pretty far right, along with numerous other South American regimes. Also Marcos and Franco.

On this scale Paul Marting would appear to be near the centre. I would say that Ralph Klien is about as far right of center as Trudeau was left of center. Which is to say they represent the respective endpoints of the "Canadian Center".

You make no sense here. Why should he do such a thing? What do you imagine not punishing Parrish proves? Where is the connection between Beichman's absurd claim that Martin hates America????

By not "slapping her on the wrist", and his fear mongering about how Harper would bring us closer to the United States, I fail to see how anybody can miss Paul Martins opinion of the United States.......actions speak louder then words.

I don't see what you see. Carolyn Parrish is an elected member of Parliament with opinions of her own. You contend that not censuring her for these opinions equates with Paul Martin 'hating America'. You then offer as support of that Martin's generalized criticism of Harper (ad CANADIAN politician) as further proof he 'hates America'. I don't see the logic.

What do you mean? I don't spout egregious propaganda full of such utter nonsense and lies, so your question is bizarre.

So you have never cast blanket statements about America?

Not that I am aware of, no.

[Hugo]

That doesn't seem very believable, considering the differnces in scale.

If you still have doubts that Che didn't give people a fair trial before having them shot, then don't take my word for it. Take Che's. I already gave you the quote where he denounces the trial and due procedure as archaic and worthless.

It's my opinion that you've had your preconceptions of Che Guevara smashed, by his own words and the words of people far more intimate with the facts than you, and you're finding it a little hard to deal with, hence your floundering. I don't think anybody's going to get very upset with you if you acknowledge Che Guevara as the cold-blooded murderer that he was. Maybe Caesar, but she is even less acquainted with the facts than you.