Canada's cold shoulder to U.S.

[caesar]

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

Obviously, you skipped that post of mine on the 27th. The USA used a lone veto to stop chastising Saddam from using poison gas on the Iranians.

[April]

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.

Which begs the question...why do Canadians love him so much? Same thing with gays...many love him...I will never understand that....!

[Newfie Canadian]

With all due respect April, I'm not so sure many Canadians love George Bush.

I may be wrong.

[caesar]

Only a few Albertans can tolerate that tyrant. Bush is the biggest threat to world peace; bigger than Saddam ever was or even the terrorists.

[caesar]

s. Maybe Caesar, but she is even less acquainted with the facts than you.

Yeah right. I have no information on Che Guevera not any interests but I do know what a tyrant Bush is and how he has been misleading and lying to Americans and the world.

What makes you think that you are so well informed???

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Che Guevara as the cold-blooded murderer that he was.

I have read some of Che's work, specifically his book on guerilla tactics (It paralleled Mao's) . I recommend the book 'Shadow Warrior' by Felix Rodriguez, a former CIA operative who took the only picture of Che the day he was executed. His body wasn't discovered for decades. (Felix is proudly ex-Cuban, pro US) Supposedly the Bolivians killed Che, and Felix played no part, but he flew Che's body out by helicopter, and somehow it went missing for twenty odd years. Then Mr. Rodriguez was implicated in, and testified amid the Iran-Contra scandal. There are pictures of him in the oval office with a grateful Vice Pres. George H.W. Bush.

As I recall, he was grilled pretty hard by, then US Senator, John Kerry. An interesting book.

[ft.niagara]

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.

Bush was the governor of Texas. No country has a greater impact on the southern part of the US than Mexico. Mexican President Fox was the first north american president seen by the newly inagurated President Bush. Traditionally, it was the Canadian Premier, but this was a tradition probably over due for change. At the very least, the first visit should be alternated. Bush is a what you see is what you get type guy. Perhaps that is a healthy thing. People generally like those people who like them in return. Bush knew Cretian did not like him from the outset, and a working relationship was not in the cards. Tony Blair, and Russia's Putin were able to develop working relationships with Bush because they recognized something which Cretian could not.

[Newfie Canadian]

I'm not going to get into the "Who don't like who" game.

All I know is that Pres. Bush, for whatever reason, has constantly snubbed this country.

On 9/11, Canada and Canadians helped hundreds and hundreds of stranded passengers, as well as helped patrol NA airspace and offered assistance in various forms, and in his speech to Congress thanked everyone but Canada and his dog for their help and support.

When a US pilot bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan, Bush waited 2+ days, before commenting publicly on it.

And there are other things.

I don't mind him visiting Mexico first. But you know what, he's been in power for almost 4 years, and he hasn't had an official state visit to Canada yet. He's been here for a couple of summits, but not on an official Canadian visit.

In regards to Chretien, we've had a new PM since December of last year. He still hasn't come here or lightened his attitude.

[Argus]

Argus doesn't believe that the USA used its veto alone often..

Define "often". A few dozen times over a few dozen decades? Almost always about Israel. Now I'll admit that occasionally it ought to have abstained or even voted agaisnt Israel. But only occasionally. Most of the votes it vetoed were once-sided and unfair, brought about by the Muslim block.

Through most of its existence the UN has been a pretty hostile place for Israel. You have several dozen Muslim nations, or nations with large muslim populations who can be guaranteed to vote against anything to do with Israel. You have most of the African block selling their votes to the Muslim block. And you had, until recently, the Soviet block and the Chinese more than willing to lend a hand and their votes and support to anything condemning a strong American allie. The US was perfectly right to veto most of those hostile, one-sided and unfair reolutions.

[Black Dog]

Through most of its existence the UN has been a pretty hostile place for Israel.

Does that include the creation of Israel by a UN mandate?

The US was perfectly right to veto most of those hostile, one-sided and unfair reolutions

Here's a selection of some recent resolutions vetoed by the US on Israel's behalf:

Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers.

Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories;  (S/19780)

Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993

Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers.

Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory;  (S/19868)

Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers.

On closer examination, you're right: these demands are completely unreasonable! Stop violence? Observe human rights? So unfair...

[Argus]

(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.

So? So? Big shrug, right? Such a fat, lazy, unimaginative borgeois leftist. So? A man, a young one, no doubt, who has never faced want, or need, or danger, and cannot imagine what it would be like dismisses the fifty year long attacks on Israel as if they are of no importance, hardly worth a thought. So? Big shrug. Attacks by mass armies, terrorist attacks on homes, schools, aircraft workplaces, power plants, beaches, shopping centres - bombs going off in streets, buses, suicide bombers, crazed Palestinians attacking old ladies with knives, scuba divers coming ashore with no motivation but hatred of Israelis and the suicidal determination to murder some before dying. So? A frenzied mob of Palestinians gets their hands on a pair of Jewish reservists who make a wrong turn and tear the apart. So? No big deal. So? <shrug>

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.

Quite right. They are different. Try and learn why they are different. Then perhaps you won't make that mistake again.

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.

Oh right. Sure, what do they have to be afraid of? Silly Jews. So there's six million of them and 320 million Arabs who want them dead. After all, some of them signed peace treaties! That means they can never attack again. Even though they hate Israel with every fibre of their being. Those Jews are so paranoid, after all.

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.

The life of the Palestinians was no worse than that of their counterparts in Egypt or Jordan prior to the Intifada. Since they began a virtual state of war with Israel, setting off bombs all over the place, naturally they've drawn fire on themselves, and naturally Israel treats them with even less respect than they might otherwise. But yes, it is the violence of the Palestinians which has inspired Israeli violence. Some people don't accept this, of course. Some people just don't like Jews.

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.

Hanging by a thread? No. But requiring constant vigilence and heightened military alert to protect. Less than half the size of nova scotia, surrounded by hundreds of millions of religious wackos. One nuke and Boom, there goes the neighborhood. Or as Iran's former president told tens of thousands of baying supporters, as soon as Iran gets nuclear weapons they must use them on Israel. Israel is so small it would not survive, while Arabs, more spread out, would survive the inevitable counterstrike. Some of them, anyway.

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.

Information of any kind is generally worth squat to those so wrapped up in hatred and bigotry as to support terrorism.

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.

You ought to, it's YOUR conclusion. What I said was that if people were really motivated by human rights concerns they would be spending most of their time on the world's worst human rights offenders. When, instead, they focus all their attention on Israel there is clearly something motivating them other than Israel's spotty human rights record; like anti-semitism.

[Argus]

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.

You think that might have had anything to do with the Canadian ambassador formerly announcing we wanted Bush to lose? Huh? Ya think?

[Argus]

Only a few Albertans can tolerate that tyrant. Bush is the biggest threat to world peace; bigger than Saddam ever was or even the terrorists.

Worse than that! He's - he's - he's an American! <sputter!>

[Argus]

Here's a selection of some recent resolutions vetoed by the US on Israel's behalf:

Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers.

Did it demand an end to all acts of terror? Or did it demand an end to Israeli acts of terror? I'm not interested in YOUR wording or YOUR description. If you want me to look at a resolution the US vetoed and give you my opinion on whether the veto was fairly applied then give me the resolution number.

[Hugo]

I have no information on Che Guevera not any interests but I do know what a tyrant Bush is...

Apparently not, since you think him worse than Castro. Castro is a real tyrant, who keeps his people in poverty (the US embargo means nothing, US-Cuban trade would be worth about $125m per year to Cuba), imprisons intellectuals, shoots dissidents without fair trial or any trial at all, tortures innocents including young children, and more.

I'm no big fan of Bush, believe me, but I'm not so ignorant as to lump him in the same category as Castro.

[Newfie Canadian]

You think that might have had anything to do with the Canadian ambassador formerly announcing we wanted Bush to lose? Huh? Ya think?

He did lose but that's not the point.

All I'm saying is that Bush has had ample time, opportunity and cause to lighten up and warm up to his northern neighbour.

Yet he and his administration continue to bully Canada around, whether we're talking about keeping the border closed to Canadian Beef for little or no reason or continuing to levy punitive duties on Canadian lumber in the face of the NAFTA panel and WTO or taking the Wheat Board to the WTO and losing, again.

Of course, he told Rick Mercer he was looking forward to working with our PM, PM Poutine.

[Stoker]

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?

Yes, I don't see any reason why a nation can't takce a certain course of action that will protect them.....

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.

Would you say that calling up the army, declaring marshall law and arresting hundreds of of people in responce to a few kindnappings and some blown up mail boxes is not a big deal?

Now how do you think that Trudeau (or any PM) would respond to the day to day problems that Israel faces?

Now if a "de facto" civil war were to start within Quebec, how do you think the fedral government would respond?

[April]

With all due respect April, I'm not so sure many Canadians love George Bush.

I may be wrong.

I have visited many Canadian forums...and it always seems the majority always defend Bush...but strike out at Americans in general.I have always found that a bit strange....I guess I should not base my opinion on that...though it is hard not to as it is all I have to go on...

sorry, no offense intended.

[Newfie Canadian]

I have visited many Canadian forums...and it always seems the majority always defend Bush...but strike out at Americans in general.I have always found that a bit strange....I guess I should not base my opinion on that...though it is hard not to as it is all I have to go on...

sorry, no offense intended.

None taken, and none meant.

It's been my experience that the opposite is true: many Canadians having nothing against the US, but don't care for Bush.

For example, I may not like the fact that the US, under the leadership of Pres. Bush went into Iraq. I don't dislike the US or Americans or hold the US in general responsible for that. I hold Pres. Bush responsible and dislike him. (Not just because of Iraq, but that's a different story.)

I expect this like I would expect Americans not to dislike Canada or Canadians because the Canadian government didn't support the Iraq war.

On other words, this Canadian do not resent America or Americans, I resent Pres. Bush.

[caesar]

Apparently not, since you think him worse than Castro. Castro is a real tyrant, who keeps his people in poverty (the US embargo means nothing, US-Cuban trade would be worth about $125m per year to Cuba), imprisons intellectuals, shoots dissidents without fair trial or any trial at all, tortures innocents including young children, and more.

I'm no big fan of Bush, believe me, but I'm not so ignorant as to lump him in the same category as Castro.

You must be confused; I never referred to Che at all. Castro is not the tyrant that you make him out to be. The Cuban people seem to be quite happy with him.

The embargo does mean a lot; who are you kidding.

I don't lump Castro with Bush either. Castro doesn't go around bullying the world or thinking he is some kind of god or something. Castro doesn't endanger the world but Bush certainly does.

[caesar]

For 1999's session of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, Amnesty International put the United States on a list of persistent violators of human rights, higher than China and excluding Cuba. (Here is the full document.)

Interesting tidbit I picked up on human rights.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

I never referred to Che at all. Castro is not the tyrant that you make him out to be. The Cuban people seem to be quite happy with him.

Actually, more Cubans are enamoured with Che than with Castro. Che's pictures are everywhere in Cuba. As to Hugo's claim that the embargoes mean nothing, that is a load of horse-puckey. Where would any country be is they were blockaded and sabotaged from trade with the outside world for the last 30 years? Besides, Castro tried to retire after he 'took over Cuba', and was persuaded to stay on as leader. It was of no 'personal meglomania' that he stayed on as ruler.

[Hugo]

Castro is not the tyrant that you make him out to be. The Cuban people seem to be quite happy with him.

Oh, I'm sure they are. About 140,000 who weren't quite happy with him were shot without trial. Everyone else is in his torture chambers. In his latest roundup, just last year, he arrested a few hundred intellectuals who'd been talking to foreign journalists and sentenced them to 20+ years in jail.

As to Hugo's claim that the embargoes mean nothing, that is a load of horse-puckey.

Read the link. It's not me who claims that, it's the International Trade Commission. $125m per annum is economic small potatoes.

would any country be is they were blockaded and sabotaged from trade with the outside world for the last 30 years?

They are not blockaded and sabotaged from trade with the outside world. The only two countries on the entire planet who refuse to trade with Cuba are the USA and Israel. Read up.

[caesar]

In his latest roundup, just last year, he arrested a few hundred intellectuals who'd been talking to foreign journalists and sentenced them to 20+ years in jail.

If I recall; these "intellectuals that he arrested were going to the enemy "USA" with their complaints/information. To do the same in the USA may be called treason and one could be shot.

Where are these 140 thousand shot without a trial; Quatanama is under American control where people are being held without their

Geneva Convention rights, tortured, and many HAVE died; perhaps you are confusing the two

[Hugo]

Where are these 140 thousand shot without a trial

Right here, according to R. J. Rummel. Low estimate of Castro's murders, 35,000, high estimate, 141,000.

Quatanama is under American control where people are being held without their Geneva Convention rights, tortured, and many HAVE died

How does this excuse Castro from anything?

If I recall; these "intellectuals that he arrested were going to the enemy "USA" with their complaints/information. To do the same in the USA may be called treason and one could be shot.

I don't think so. All these people were doing was talking to Western journalists about standards of living in Cuba and the nature of Castro's regime. An awful lot of Americans have bemoaned Bush's administration to foreign journalists and I don't recall a single one being tried for treason and shot. Perhaps you can provide a link?