Imperial Visit

[The Terrible Sweal]

It doesn't change my view of his mistakes and corruption, but tactically/practically this visit was a diplomatic success.

[Newfie Canadian]

I'll give him this: he has great speech writers.

The comments concerning King, the NHL, Thompson's quote and the ever famous Elephant analogy were absolute gold for Bush.

In regards to hot topic items like softwood lumber and cattle, there was nothing.

On missle defence, well, the issue is growing, which was his intention I assume.

But I do agree with you that in regards to diplomacy, he hit a home run. He came off as a human being, a sometimes funny one, and showed something he never showed before: a little bit of knowledge about Canada (a credit no doubt to the above mentioned speech writers).

I can't remember from where I saw the headline, but it read that Bushe gave us "a charm offensive", and that's what it was.

[Guest eureka]

To me, he came off as threatening and dismissive.

[shackwacky]

I keep hearing how charming Bush was. And I can't figure out why. He joked about Jean Poutine...a reference to his own ignorance of Canada politics. He joked about BSE...not funny. He implied that the softwood problem is not about to go away anytime soon. He made veiled threats about sleeping next to the elephant and neighbours like it or not. He said thank you three years too late and did not have the intestinal fortitude to apologize for the delay. He made jokes about the Canadian protesters and then arrogantly assured us that our opinion on world matters wasn't worth the time it took to listen to it. (I know we disagree but I am the kind of guy that does exactly what I want....) How tell me, is this charming??

[Newfie Canadian]

shackwacky, you put me in the unenviable position of defending Bush.

He joked about Jean Poutine...a reference to his own ignorance of Canada politics.

The charm here was the acknowledgement of his own ignorance. In other words, if you can't laugh at yourself...

He joked about BSE

I must have missed that one.

He implied that the softwood problem is not about to go away anytime soon

Did anyone expect it to?

He made veiled threats about sleeping next to the elephant and neighbours like it or not.

It was a reference to P.E. Trudeau's quote. He imlpied that he understood that it was hard for us to be a neighbour to the US(elephant), because as Trudeau said "...one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

It wasn't a threat.

He said thank you three years too late and did not have the intestinal fortitude to apologize for the delay.

I can't argue that. I agree.

He made jokes about the Canadian protesters and then arrogantly assured us that our opinion on world matters wasn't worth the time it took to listen to it.

Charming, no, but at least it was honest.

All in all, it could have been a lot worse for Canada.

[Tawasakm]

I was all set to make an intelligent response to this but, unfortunately, because of the thread title I couldn't get 'The Imperial March' out of my head.

All I could seem to think of after that was some kind of speculation on what would happen if 1) George Bush was ever greeted anywhere with that music playing full blast and 2) what would happen if America changed its national anthem to the Imperial March (which would be kind of neat since theres no song to accompany the music - you can just stand there nodding your head to the tune).

[shackwacky]

Newfie, if our prime minister, even in his first days, publicly admitted that he did not know the name of his biggest trading partner - that's not funny. That shows how little regard this man has for our country.

The BSE issue is a one-liner for Bush. He joked that "last night I ate some Alberta beef. I am still standing". He made the BSE issue, which is a huge and disastrous issue to farmers in this country, into a joke.

His quotes from King were ridiculous as they were taken completely out of context. One of his spin doctors obviously did a google search of positive canada leader invade etc etc. King was referring to Germany, which was a superpower at the time who unilaterally decided to take another country by force regardless of its citizenry. Oops, sounds like someone else we know.

I know where the elephant analogy come from. But to be reminded that you are sleeping beside the elephant, at the same time as you are politely being asked to commit to troops in iraq and troops in afghanistan and missile defence...threatening but in a "charming" way.

And no one expects the softwood issue to go away soon. So a reasonable response from Bush .... oh, say one that let Canadians know what a hardship it was and how the new charming bush felt deeply for the hundreds of unemployed loggers affected by US Protectionism...that might have taken wings. Instead he made silly jokes about it! You must not be a logger or you would have felt this one a bit deeper.

[Choke]

King was referring to Germany, which was a superpower at the time who unilaterally decided to take another country by force regardless of its citizenry. Oops, sounds like someone else we know.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein.

[MapleBear]

King was referring to Germany, which was a superpower at the time who unilaterally decided to take another country by force regardless of its citizenry. Oops, sounds like someone else we know.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein.

No, the United States would be a better example; Iraq has never been a superpower.

[Choke]

I know what you were saying, but I was trying to illustrate there's more than one side to it. In 1990 Iraq had the 4th largest military after the USA, USSR, and UK. I think that the difference is that Iraq took aggressive action, but in an odd turn of events, Saddam held onto power after being defeated and shunned by the world. It would be as if Hitler invaded Poland and was immediately routed, but left in power while the German people starved due to sanctions.

[shackwacky]

It would be as if Hitler invaded Poland and was immediately routed, but left in power while the German people starved due to sanctions.

Exactly. Then, another superpower comes in with shock and awe, and kills the starving Germans and turns their cities to rubble. Oh, and removes Hitler in the process.

[The Terrible Sweal]

He made veiled threats about sleeping next to the elephant and neighbours like it or not.

It was a reference to P.E. Trudeau's quote. He imlpied that he understood that it was hard for us to be a neighbour to the US(elephant), because as Trudeau said "...one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

It wasn't a threat.

In fact, for him to refer with any approval anything Trudeau said is a signal of respect for Canadianism.

He said thank you three years too late and did not have the intestinal fortitude to apologize for the delay.

I can't argue that. I agree.

I wouldn't tar him with that. Three years is not a long time when it comes to scheduling such things. The true offence was earlier when he made that speech thanking everyone but Canada.

[Choke]

Yes, but the point is that more people were killed by sanctions than by war itself and it is better to have ended the sanctions. I wish they would've just let Saddam have Kuwait, but that didn't happen and the only way to end the sanctions was to end Saddam's rule, and if you recall, he had no intention of surrendering.

[shackwacky]

Sweal, how can it be that the real offense was not thanking us back in 2001...but that it's okay to do it now three years later?!! And only because he wants something?

[shackwacky]

Yes, but the point is that more people were killed by sanctions than by war itself and it is better to have ended the sanctions. I wish they would've just let Saddam have Kuwait, but that didn't happen and the only way to end the sanctions was to end Saddam's rule, and if you recall, he had no intention of surrendering.

Let me get this straight. The US was among those imposing sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions were killing people in Iraq. Ending the rule of Saddam was the only way to stop the sanctions. Saddam was captured a year ago (thus effectively ending the rule....). The death toll last month was among the highest since major operations ended... boy I bet the Iraquis are glad those sanctions are gone.

[Choke]

At least now there's a chance they killing will end, as opposed to no chance. Would you rather Saddam had been in power another 20 years so another 1,000,000 could die?

[shackwacky]

At least now there's a chance they killing will end, as opposed to no chance. Would you rather Saddam had been in power another 20 years so another 1,000,000 could die?

Of course not, Saddam was not a terribly nice guy and no one would wish for his continued rule. But at least he didn't come to Canada and ask us to legitimize his atrocities by helping fold ballots for his puppet election.

Have you ever heard the saying that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease?

[Choke]

Yes, but I don't think that's the case here...leaving Saddam in power would've been worse IMO, and not because he was horrendously evil, but because the sanctions combined with his post-Gulf War corruption made life intolerable for Iraqis.

[Tawasakm]

I agree, Choke, that Iraq is better off without Saddam. Its harder for people to believe, I think, because of Bush's lack of credibility. The single most damaging thing he has done in his presidency (in terms of international relations) is to destroy his credibility by doctoring evidence for WMD, suspending Geneva conventions, not staying on target with Bin Laden etc.

How different things may have been if he behaved differently... Its only speculation I know but what might have happened if he had 1) staid on target with Bin Laden 2) Recognised and scrupulously adhered to all of the Geneva conventions then 3) Presented a case to the UN for the liberation of Iraq based on the violations of the ceasefire agreement which are readily apparent (I am referring to non-WMD related violations - of which there are many), Iraq's lack of co-operation with weapons inspectors, the continuing and apalling plight of the Iraqi people, the obvious ineffectiveness of sanctions (which were hurting common Iraqis), the ineffective of oil for food and other aid programs to alleviate the suffering due to the corruption of the dictatorship, human rights violations etc.

He wouldn't have to cook anything up to present that case. He would have had more credibility for really staying on target with Bin Laden and for scrupulously following the Geneva Conventions and supporting human rights as far as possible (it being difficult to support the right to life of soldiers you are shooting at in battle). Even if the UN hadn't supported his idea for regime change I don't think he would have faced such a backlash for going ahead with it anyway (and probably would have received more assistance). Why? There would have been no reason to doubt that he would have liberated the Iraqis and set up self-governance. Because he would have had credibility based on previous actions. As it is he doesn't have that now. What is the result? Alot of doubt and mistrust which, I think, was avoidable. It might have taken longer to get into Iraq but the result may well have been better.

Well I guess thats enough of my rambling speculation.

[Choke]

Its only speculation I know but what might have happened if he had 1) staid on target with Bin Laden

After 9/11, Bin Laden had accomplished the biggest thing he's ever going to accomplish, and killing him now would have almost no impact on terrorism other than to make him a martyr and a saint in many people's minds in the Muslim world.

2) Recognised and scrupulously adhered to all of the Geneva conventions

Honestly, I don't think the Geneva Conventions are realistic in this war, just like they weren't in WW2 between Germany and Russia. When the opposing sides hate each other this much, the Conventions go out the window regardless of what their leaders say, so I think he's at least being honest about that.

3) Presented a case to the UN for the liberation of Iraq based on the violations of the ceasefire agreement which are readily apparent (I am referring to non-WMD related violations - of which there are many), Iraq's lack of co-operation with weapons inspectors, the continuing and apalling plight of the Iraqi people, the obvious ineffectiveness of sanctions (which were hurting common Iraqis), the ineffective of oil for food and other aid programs to alleviate the suffering due to the corruption of the dictatorship, human rights violations etc.

I think America built up the WMD case because no one else was willing to go to war without a threat from WMD. They DID try what you suggest, it failed, so they built the WMD case to try to salvage things.

There would have been no reason to doubt that he would have liberated the Iraqis and set up self-governance. Because he would have had credibility based on previous actions.

I don't think people outside America, and especially outside North America have ever trusted the American President or ever will, no matter what his name is.

[shackwacky]

I think America built up the WMD case because no one else was willing to go to war without a threat from WMD. They DID try what you suggest, it failed, so they built the WMD case to try to salvage things.

No-one else was willing to go to war without a threat of WMD??!! Oh those pesky world agreements. Never mind, we'll just pretend that they do have the WMD's and we can still invade them. Wink wink nudge nudge.

[Choke]

If the world was so mad about this, they should've told America to back off, that it would mean war with, say Russia and China. I certainly wouldn't expect the EU to have that kind of guts but the Russians and Chinese could've done something if they wanted to and did not. Therefore there were no real objections.

[shackwacky]

If the world was so mad about this, they should've told America to back off, that it would mean war with, say Russia and China. I certainly wouldn't expect the EU to have that kind of guts but the Russians and Chinese could've done something if they wanted to and did not. Therefore there were no real objections.

I have trouble with the no real objections. Perhaps they believed the US about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. After all, there was proof and graphs and charts and recordings and confessions and 8x10 glossies of mobile chemical weaponry labsand satellite pictures...

I am not trying to say that the US can or should just leave Iraq tomorrow. I am not saying that the Iraquis were better off under Saddam. I agree with Tawasakm on that. But I am sure I am not the only person who gets tired of this defense of the indefensible. For whatever reason, the US decided they had to invade Iraq. They needed proof of WMD to do that, so they fabricated evidence. They went in with their shock and awe tactics and killed far too many innocents in their hunt for saddam...er, weapons.....er, terrorists.....er, insurgents. I am afraid the next target is civilians-turned-insurgents. It is a boondoggle.

And to try to return to the original thread. Post 911, Canada was snubbed by Mr. Bush because we were not willing to jump into bed with him on this. (You mentioned earlier that perhaps he needed three years to schedule a thank you call....do you really think so?) Interesting that now when he once again wants something from us, he is willing to schedule time to do the best neighbours thank you so much speech.

No, I don't trust GW. When the dog has bitten once...

[Choke]

After all, there was proof and graphs and charts and recordings and confessions and 8x10 glossies of mobile chemical weaponry labsand satellite pictures...

At the time I saw through what they were doing, and I still supported the war. I knew there were no WMD and that even if there were Saddam didn't have the will to use them on Americans or give them to terrorists or he would have a long time ago. I also knew they just wanted the oil. I just figured a positive by-product of them invading would be an end to the sanctions, and that was enough for me to support the war. If Canada had joined the Coalition, I would've joined the armed forces.

Post 911, Canada was snubbed by Mr. Bush because we were not willing to jump into bed with him on this.

Bush didn't come because he wasn't welcome. Jean Chretien went out of his way to alienate Bush before and after 9/11. That's fine if he wanted to shift our trade completely out of North America, but no, he didn't want that, he just didn't like Bush because he's a Conservative.

[Tawasakm]

I don't think people outside America, and especially outside North America have ever trusted the American President or ever will, no matter what his name is.

Well I don't think thats entirely true. There are presidents who have trusted by a majority of Australians for instance (rightly or wrongly).

Also in times of war there is an opportunity, I believe, to achieve that which may normally be beyond reach. Heads of state in times of war can immortalise themselves as heros or demons. Bush had an opporunity to gain real credibility for himself through his actions. In peace time he may not be able to provide substance to rhetoric is such a large way. After 9/11 though that opportunity existed.

Honestly, I don't think the Geneva Conventions are realistic in this war, just like they weren't in WW2 between Germany and Russia. When the opposing sides hate each other this much, the Conventions go out the window regardless of what their leaders say, so I think he's at least being honest about that

I also have some problems with this. I believe that if we allow hate to define our actions (or to define what is permissable) we run the risk of destroying ourselves that which we seek to defend. We become less then we were.

If my semantics and grammar aren't quite as good as normal I apologise - I'm still taking some pain killers which are fragmenting my focus a little (this isn't at all related to the car problems I mentioned in another thread - in case people think I was in an accident or suchlike).