Harper's Foreign Policy ?

[Harare]

There's a big difference between being anti-American and anti-Bush. I don't personally know anyone who I would consider to be anti-American, but most everyone I know is anti-Bush.

So Bubber when Jack or Martin or any number of columnists make statements like "we don't a healthcare system like the American one" they really mean Bush's healthcare system ?

When they say we don't want our Supreme Court selected the way the Americans do they really mean Bush selection system.

When they say they don't want to lose the Monarchy and become a Republic like the US they're really only anti Bush ?

I couldn't disagree with you more - anti americanism in Canada has been around a lot longer the Bush's administration.

[Wilber]

There's a big difference between being anti-American and anti-Bush. I don't personally know anyone who I would consider to be anti-American, but most everyone I know is anti-Bush.

I do. Anti-Americanism has always been a fact of Canadian life. Our politicans always talk about standing up to the Americans, not standing up to GWB. Certainly Bush has made it easier for many people to be anti-American.

[Guest eureka]

This is ridiculous. You know, extremisits have no right to debate policy. Extreme left, extreme right...you are all the same.

Spoken like a good Conservative: Free speech and all that.

Tell me, though, why you would prevent nearly all the Conservatives on this board from having their say?

[newbie]

Anti-Americanism has always been a fact of Canadian life. Our politicans always talk about standing up to the Americans, not standing up to GWB. Certainly Bush has made it easier for many people to be anti-American.

Actually, Bush has made it easier for many people to be anti-bush.

[Montgomery Burns]

A question for all the US bashers. If you could pick one other country to wield the military power the US has, who would it be?

"Through the years, the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy. True democracy allows for freedom of speech. Something that does not exist in the US of A, and something that we still manage to enjoy here in Canada at least to some extent. Will we if Harper gets into power?"

Have you ever spent time in the US during an election? Ever heard of Watergate? Iran Contra? etc etc. The press uncovered those, not politcians or the Auditor General. No hate laws in the US. You can badmouth who you please. Gerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Louis Farrakhan etc etc. Americans regularly check an incumbents voting record before they decide how to vote. No need in Canada, they all vote the party line.

No democracy in the US.

"...Clearly, in order to fool all the people all the time and to set US up for that most profitable of all political rackets, namely war, control and domination of the press, as well as all elements of the American media, is absolutely vital in a nation that once was characterized as being so abundantly wealthy in individual freedom. Such a nation would quickly recognize tyranny and be readily critical of any and all threats to its freedoms. Just as the first Nazi regime initially launched itself by securing a vital propaganda tool, think of the smashing advantage and experience the current Nazi regime has over the first via the total power of the Zionist media....

...the Hitler regime was just a dry run for the real thing: the unending Nazi regime headed by members of the Bush and Clinton crime families. Grandpa Bush, Prescott, was Hitler's chief financier. He siphoned off the remaining Nazi Union Banking funds to launch the Bush family wealth. And yet more Nazi funding and assets were used and transferred to create the "American" CIA. Nazi intelligence agency operatives transferred under Grandpa Bush to the CIA launched many covert operations in South America with the intent of giving the Reich a new start in this hemisphere..."

This is ridiculous. You know, extremisits have no right to debate policy. Extreme left, extreme right...you are all the same.

I am not a bug Bush fan, but you know what? He has done some good things and he has helped the people in Iraq out a lot, regardless of what the extreme communist left might think.

I do not believe for one minute the ridiculous stuff you are passing off as "truth"...

You're correct. Prescott Bush owned one share in a bank that was owned by an early financial supporter of Hitler. That's it. From there, the radical left took it into full-blown conspiracy mode.

Also, they don't mention that liberal icon Averell Harriman had 3991 shares of the same bank.

[scribblet]

There's a big difference between being anti-American and anti-Bush. I don't personally know anyone who I would consider to be anti-American, but most everyone I know is anti-Bush.

So Bubber when Jack or Martin or any number of columnists make statements like "we don't a healthcare system like the American one" they really mean Bush's healthcare system ?

When they say we don't want our Supreme Court selected the way the Americans do they really mean Bush selection system.

When they say they don't want to lose the Monarchy and become a Republic like the US they're really only anti Bush ?

I couldn't disagree with you more - anti americanism in Canada has been around a lot longer the Bush's administration.

Thats the usual comeback isn't it, Its only Bush and his policies. Sure - right. I've read comments on some groups calling Americans morons and stupid for voting him in again. I've seen comments such as '90% of Americans are ignorant etc. etc.' Many Canadians seem to think they are superior because we have a 'better health care system', sorry people, but its not just anti Bush, there seems to be a pervasive arrogance and yes, an intense dislike of anything American, from many Canadians. There's an immediate knee jerk rejection of anything American, no matter how good it might be. If they expressed the same sentiments towards any other group they would be labeled racist.

[BubberMiley]

So Bubber when Jack or Martin or any number of columnists make statements like "we don't a healthcare system like the American one" they really mean Bush's healthcare system ?

How could criticizing their health care system possibly be construed as anti-Americanism? They pay more money per capita than we do (when you count insurance premiums--not just taxes), and yet 30% of their citizens have no coverage at all. Is criticizing the Canadian health care system anti-Canadian? Some would probably say so, but I disagree. That's just debate, not hate.

When they say we don't want our Supreme Court selected the way the Americans do they really mean Bush selection system.

There's a big difference between criticizing a political system and promoting hatred.

When they say they don't want to lose the Monarchy and become a Republic like the US they're really only anti Bush ?

Again, not wanting Canada to give up on its historical identity and become a Republic is nothing against the Americans. I think the U.S. is a great country, and I don't think Americans are so insecure as to perceive differences of opinion or policy as acts of aggression toward their way of life. Again, it's not anti-American to be anti-Bush, and it's not anti-American to not want to do everything just like them.

[Argus]

There's a big difference between being anti-American and anti-Bush. I don't personally know anyone who I would consider to be anti-American, but most everyone I know is anti-Bush.

How about idiot-boy above who talked about how low the average American IQ is?

[BubberMiley]

How about idiot-boy above who talked about how low the average American IQ is?

Sure, that's stupid and adds up to anti-Americanism. But the vast majority of Canadians wouldn't say something like that. The worst they would do in that regard is laugh at Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans skits, and that's pretty good natured. If anybody took offence to that, they have overly thin skin and a humour deficiency.

[Concerned]

How about idiot-boy above who talked about how low the average American IQ is?

Sure, that's stupid and adds up to anti-Americanism. But the vast majority of Canadians wouldn't say something like that. The worst they would do in that regard is laugh at Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans skits, and that's pretty good natured. If anybody took offence to that, they have overly thin skin and a humour deficiency.

Well its a true fact, sorry I was out by 8 points.....

."...There recently appeared a chart that indicated an average intelligence quote per state that claims the states with people of lower average IQ chose Bush. The states with higher average IQs leaned toward Kerry. It claimed that the average IQ in America is 98, far lower than I realized...

Was the data on the chart accurate?...

From IQ data taken from a book by university professors Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen called “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” and a website that showed IQ data calculated from state SAT and ACT scores, there is an indication that this, indeed, is the average level of intellect in the US...

see chart at: http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1048.html

[scribblet]

So Bubber when Jack or Martin or any number of columnists make statements like "we don't a healthcare system like the American one" they really mean Bush's healthcare system ?

When they say they don't want to lose the Monarchy and become a Republic like the US they're really only anti Bush ?

Again, not wanting Canada to give up on its historical identity and become a Republic is nothing against the Americans. I think the U.S. is a great country, and I don't think Americans are so insecure as to perceive differences of opinion or policy as acts of aggression toward their way of life. Again, it's not anti-American to be anti-Bush, and it's not anti-American to not want to do everything just like them.

I agree with with that bubba, but what will they say when Bush is gone in 3 years ?

[pharmer]

Of course it is. I just get tired of all this pious BS I hear from Canadians. We owe our whole quality of life to those dastardly Americans and what they do to maintain their own position in the world and what they do to prop up the rest of the G8 or G10 or whatever the heck they are now. Trouble is, we want all the good stuff but aren't willing to be honest about what it really takes to provide it. Exercising power is not a popularity contest.

Our country and our system of government is a product of the British Empire, particularly the Victorian period. In the 64 years of Victoria's reign there wasn't one year that British troops weren't fighting in some little war, revolt, mutiny etc somewhere in the world. Their foreign policy wasn't popular with the rest of the world and they were also complicit in many of the worlds wars that sure weren't fought for the benefit of the locals, but we owe our country, our language, our government, our laws and all our freedoms to those people. They weren't just some happy coincidence. We are not the chosen people.

The justification of american (and canadian for that matter) foreign policy is not responsible or even equitable.

The need that this system (capitalism) requires for the stimulation of growth and consumption essentially forces nations (such as the G8) to impose their principles on sovereign, undeveloped nations. To remove democratically elected governments in order to install puppet regimes is not a responsible use of power even if such a nation is arrogant enough to believe its system is better.

More often than not the end result is the exploitation and susequent marginalization of said undeveloped nation until a 'proper' business partner strategy is implemented in order to funnel money up and out of the country... back to the source.

[geoffrey]

The justification of american (and canadian for that matter) foreign policy is not responsible or even equitable.

The need that this system (capitalism) requires for the stimulation of growth and consumption essentially forces nations (such as the G8) to impose their principles on sovereign, undeveloped nations. To remove democratically elected governments in order to install puppet regimes is not a responsible use of power even if such a nation is arrogant enough to believe its system is better.

More often than not the end result is the exploitation and susequent marginalization of said undeveloped nation until a 'proper' business partner strategy is implemented in order to funnel money up and out of the country... back to the source.

Sorry buddy, its not the system. The Commie bloc did it too. Our system is better. We have the freedom to choose another if it wasn't so good. They don't, they are oppressed using tools like rape, kidnappings and torture beyond anything we can comprehend.

Can you tell me when a democratically elected government was removed and replaced with a puppet regime? A real democratic government, just one example, more if you can provide it.

[pharmer]

The justification of american (and canadian for that matter) foreign policy is not responsible or even equitable.

The need that this system (capitalism) requires for the stimulation of growth and consumption essentially forces nations (such as the G8) to impose their principles on sovereign, undeveloped nations. To remove democratically elected governments in order to install puppet regimes is not a responsible use of power even if such a nation is arrogant enough to believe its system is better.

More often than not the end result is the exploitation and susequent marginalization of said undeveloped nation until a 'proper' business partner strategy is implemented in order to funnel money up and out of the country... back to the source.

Sorry buddy, its not the system. The Commie bloc did it too. Our system is better. We have the freedom to choose another if it wasn't so good. They don't, they are oppressed using tools like rape, kidnappings and torture beyond anything we can comprehend.

Can you tell me when a democratically elected government was removed and replaced with a puppet regime? A real democratic government, just one example, more if you can provide it.

Haiti.

Both communism and capitalism are material based. Neither will be stable over long periods of time.

[geoffrey]

The justification of american (and canadian for that matter) foreign policy is not responsible or even equitable.

The need that this system (capitalism) requires for the stimulation of growth and consumption essentially forces nations (such as the G8) to impose their principles on sovereign, undeveloped nations. To remove democratically elected governments in order to install puppet regimes is not a responsible use of power even if such a nation is arrogant enough to believe its system is better.

More often than not the end result is the exploitation and susequent marginalization of said undeveloped nation until a 'proper' business partner strategy is implemented in order to funnel money up and out of the country... back to the source.

Sorry buddy, its not the system. The Commie bloc did it too. Our system is better. We have the freedom to choose another if it wasn't so good. They don't, they are oppressed using tools like rape, kidnappings and torture beyond anything we can comprehend.

Can you tell me when a democratically elected government was removed and replaced with a puppet regime? A real democratic government, just one example, more if you can provide it.

Haiti.

Both communism and capitalism are material based. Neither will be stable over long periods of time.

And your proposal to end capitalism and communism?? Uh huh... riiiigght.

And thats right, I forgot in democracy you can have roaming street gangs that beat your citizens into submission. How silly of me? Haiti is a bad example, Haiti has never been a free democracy.

Oh and I just thought of another example. Hitler was elected too, next time you should argue we should have respected Nazi Germany's soverignty.

I respect what you saying, but you got to be more pragmatic. I'm open to hear your solution to capitalism and communism though.

[pharmer]

The justification of american (and canadian for that matter) foreign policy is not responsible or even equitable.

The need that this system (capitalism) requires for the stimulation of growth and consumption essentially forces nations (such as the G8) to impose their principles on sovereign, undeveloped nations. To remove democratically elected governments in order to install puppet regimes is not a responsible use of power even if such a nation is arrogant enough to believe its system is better.

More often than not the end result is the exploitation and susequent marginalization of said undeveloped nation until a 'proper' business partner strategy is implemented in order to funnel money up and out of the country... back to the source.

Sorry buddy, its not the system. The Commie bloc did it too. Our system is better. We have the freedom to choose another if it wasn't so good. They don't, they are oppressed using tools like rape, kidnappings and torture beyond anything we can comprehend.

Can you tell me when a democratically elected government was removed and replaced with a puppet regime? A real democratic government, just one example, more if you can provide it.

Haiti.

Both communism and capitalism are material based. Neither will be stable over long periods of time.

And your proposal to end capitalism and communism?? Uh huh... riiiigght.

And thats right, I forgot in democracy you can have roaming street gangs that beat your citizens into submission. How silly of me? Haiti is a bad example, Haiti has never been a free democracy.

Oh and I just thought of another example. Hitler was elected too, next time you should argue we should have respected Nazi Germany's soverignty.

I respect what you saying, but you got to be more pragmatic. I'm open to hear your solution to capitalism and communism though.

OKay

1) Haiti had elected (twice) Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was twice removed by military forces. Haitian military trained by US army while under former US supported 'dictator' Duvalier.

2) Sure hitler was an elected leader. Why did the US not declare war until after he had conquered most of continental europe? When a nation imposes its policies and governance on other nations (such as US today) then it should be overthrown as such acts are violations of basic human rights. For example, when Hitler was extermenating german-jews and invading poland, that was an appropriate time to remove such a regime.

Not when Hatitian farmers won't sell their land to US foreign investors, so it can in turn be developed to support agriculture which is ultimately for export (all the while exploiting cheap Haitian labour wages).

3) The problem with materialistic based systems is the simple fact that it only accounts for one type of capital. Economic capital is the sole source of capital in welfare economics. What about environmental, ecological and social capital? Ecological-economics has a measure for environment and ecological capital, it allows for a steady-state system, rather than infinite growth.

http://www.ecoeco.org/

[geoffrey]

1) Haiti had elected (twice) Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was twice removed by military forces. Haitian military trained by US army while under former US supported 'dictator' Duvalier.

Aristide was cited for human rights abuses from a few organizations, including Amnesty International.

I have no doubt the US has played a hand in the issues and have made things worse, but Aristide is no angel either. He is also an utter failure when it comes to advancing his country, which isn't suprising for someone that has more money himself than most of the country combined.

2) Sure hitler was an elected leader. Why did the US not declare war until after he had conquered most of continental europe? When a nation imposes its policies and governance on other nations (such as US today) then it should be overthrown as such acts are violations of basic human rights. For example, when Hitler was extermenating german-jews and invading poland, that was an appropriate time to remove such a regime.

Not when Hatitian farmers won't sell their land to US foreign investors, so it can in turn be developed to support agriculture which is ultimately for export (all the while exploiting cheap Haitian labour wages).

Best defense of that counter-argument I've heard yet, well done. From the same point of view you could also easily justify the war in Iraq though. Saddam was extermenating Kurds and political dissenters and invaded Kuwaitt. I'm not going to justify one war with another though, as I'm pretty much opposed to wars unless necessary.

3) The problem with materialistic based systems is the simple fact that it only accounts for one type of capital. Economic capital is the sole source of capital in welfare economics. What about environmental, ecological and social capital? Ecological-economics has a measure for environment and ecological capital, it allows for a steady-state system, rather than infinite growth.

http://www.ecoeco.org/

Our economic power gives us our standard of living, not our ecological wealth. Rich countries have higher standards of livings, not ones that are environmentally sound or ecologically diverse. Protecting the environment is important (as I like to enjoy it), but basing society on ecology or what not seems silly to me. I say we eliminate our impact as much as possible, try not to intervene and go from there. Social capital is always subjective so I'd say you couldn't use it as an effective example of modeling a society. I think we can make a huge difference in the world using democratic capitalism, if people are given the freedoms to lead their own lives towards success.

[arif]

Quote:

"Of course it is. I just get tired of all this pious BS I hear from Canadians. We owe our whole quality of life to those dastardly Americans and what they do to maintain their own position in the world and what they do to prop up the rest of the G8 or G10 or whatever the heck they are now. Trouble is, we want all the good stuff but aren't willing to be honest about what it really takes to provide it. Exercising power is not a popularity contest.

Our country and our system of government is a product of the British Empire, particularly the Victorian period. In the 64 years of Victoria's reign there wasn't one year that British troops weren't fighting in some little war, revolt, mutiny etc somewhere in the world. Their foreign policy wasn't popular with the rest of the world and they were also complicit in many of the worlds wars that sure weren't fought for the benefit of the locals, but we owe our country, our language, our government, our laws and all our freedoms to those people. They weren't just some happy coincidence. We are not the chosen people.

You are wrong, it is politically incorrect not to be anti American in this country. That's why most of our politicians can't resist playing the anti American card to get votes."

sorry to be pious Wilber,

why shouldn't anyone speak against the American foreign policy. It's easy to see that it shows no concern for vast numbers of non-Americans, even as it props up its allies like us. Oh, thank you America! Like a big brother whose in a gang and brings home Adidas and Gameboys for everyone, what a farce!! From an international law perspective they are criminals.

There's no benefit, no freedom, that comes from this. People I know who've come back from developing countries, where they've gone to help, they say - these people are happier than us. Look, domestically we've got some great institutions and civil society, but there's a big black hole - why are we discussing it this at all? - what culture has to defend it's evils by chanting its mantra of its own superior freedoms. You think this is pious? I thought one might be able to argue how complicit we are in the negation of rights of others, but you are saying that yes, America is doing this, but we should be grateful because of what we have. You have no faith that if we in the West said no, we are no longer going to find this acceptable, you fear that if we did that, we would lose something, and you have no vision of what we might gain. And then people like Bush like to trumpet their "morals" and "values", and how we have to bring these back to society, what a farce! What values, that gays shouldn't marry, but oh yeah, it's ok for our companies to outsource jobs to kids in some sweatshop in a developing country, it's ok for our soft drink companies to parachute into some village and drain the water table so it can't be used for agriculture, and make some useless product that no one needs, while creating the demand through advertising.

Oh thank you America, our great defenders! how pathetic, I'm not grateful for inequality, something in me wants to change it, but now you see I've got to go through all of those motions and struggles of whether what I'm part of will create more dependence (aid), whether what I'm part of is what is wanted, whether it will work, you know all of that empowerment, and capacity-building. Do you know the kinds of barriers that inequality erects?

You have these massive powers like the World Bank, like the US, working against justice. Don't you want to live in a world where we don't have to go through this? Don't you want to live in a world where our native community is strong and we don't have to feel estranged from them, we don't have to see these commercials with starving children, where charity is something that happens in response to misfortune, not to institutionalized injustice. You think I could explain to my children that, oh yeah, it was ok for the Belgian soldiers in the Congo to cut people's noses off, because that kept them in line, and that meant we could extract all the wealth from the country, and by the way we wouldn't have our Western superiority, with our western freedoms, hadn't these colonizers built it for us on the backs of the 20 million Congolese killed?

Do you think the slave-masters thought they could get on without slavery, they probably made the same arguments, that slavery is needed, and those sitting back in Brittain ought to be grateful for their cotton and tea, and all of those valiant Brittish soldiers that were conquering and civilizing the world.

You see these people, after all that's been visited upon their country, and they'll welcome you as a Westerner if you visit there, they'll cook you a meal even though they don't have enough for themselves, you might think I'm being romantic, but these are the true stories of workers in the field.

You have linked colonialism with the US foreign policy, and where I thought colonialisim was atrocious, you have defended both because of the supposed prize.

Thank you for calling me pious, I was beginning to think that I wasn't pious enough. Would have thought piety would be a quality to be admired for those who say "God Bless the USA".

Sorry for my anger, I'm hoping one day people will see that it doesn't have to be this way, only if we believe that will it change.

Arif

[CCGirl]

Quote:

"Of course it is. I just get tired of all this pious BS I hear from Canadians. We owe our whole quality of life to those dastardly Americans and what they do to maintain their own position in the world and what they do to prop up the rest of the G8 or G10 or whatever the heck they are now. Trouble is, we want all the good stuff but aren't willing to be honest about what it really takes to provide it. Exercising power is not a popularity contest.

Our country and our system of government is a product of the British Empire, particularly the Victorian period. In the 64 years of Victoria's reign there wasn't one year that British troops weren't fighting in some little war, revolt, mutiny etc somewhere in the world. Their foreign policy wasn't popular with the rest of the world and they were also complicit in many of the worlds wars that sure weren't fought for the benefit of the locals, but we owe our country, our language, our government, our laws and all our freedoms to those people. They weren't just some happy coincidence. We are not the chosen people.

You are wrong, it is politically incorrect not to be anti American in this country. That's why most of our politicians can't resist playing the anti American card to get votes."

sorry to be pious Wilber,

why shouldn't anyone speak against the American foreign policy. It's easy to see that it shows no concern for vast numbers of non-Americans, even as it props up its allies like us. Oh, thank you America! Like a big brother whose in a gang and brings home Adidas and Gameboys for everyone, what a farce!! From an international law perspective they are criminals.

There's no benefit, no freedom, that comes from this. People I know who've come back from developing countries, where they've gone to help, they say - these people are happier than us. Look, domestically we've got some great institutions and civil society, but there's a big black hole - why are we discussing it this at all? - what culture has to defend it's evils by chanting its mantra of its own superior freedoms. You think this is pious? I thought one might be able to argue how complicit we are in the negation of rights of others, but you are saying that yes, America is doing this, but we should be grateful because of what we have. You have no faith that if we in the West said no, we are no longer going to find this acceptable, you fear that if we did that, we would lose something, and you have no vision of what we might gain. And then people like Bush like to trumpet their "morals" and "values", and how we have to bring these back to society, what a farce! What values, that gays shouldn't marry, but oh yeah, it's ok for our companies to outsource jobs to kids in some sweatshop in a developing country, it's ok for our soft drink companies to parachute into some village and drain the water table so it can't be used for agriculture, and make some useless product that no one needs, while creating the demand through advertising.

Oh thank you America, our great defenders! how pathetic, I'm not grateful for inequality, something in me wants to change it, but now you see I've got to go through all of those motions and struggles of whether what I'm part of will create more dependence (aid), whether what I'm part of is what is wanted, whether it will work, you know all of that empowerment, and capacity-building. Do you know the kinds of barriers that inequality erects?

You have these massive powers like the World Bank, like the US, working against justice. Don't you want to live in a world where we don't have to go through this? Don't you want to live in a world where our native community is strong and we don't have to feel estranged from them, we don't have to see these commercials with starving children, where charity is something that happens in response to misfortune, not to institutionalized injustice. You think I could explain to my children that, oh yeah, it was ok for the Belgian soldiers in the Congo to cut people's noses off, because that kept them in line, and that meant we could extract all the wealth from the country, and by the way we wouldn't have our Western superiority, with our western freedoms, hadn't these colonizers built it for us on the backs of the 20 million Congolese killed?

Do you think the slave-masters thought they could get on without slavery, they probably made the same arguments, that slavery is needed, and those sitting back in Brittain ought to be grateful for their cotton and tea, and all of those valiant Brittish soldiers that were conquering and civilizing the world.

You see these people, after all that's been visited upon their country, and they'll welcome you as a Westerner if you visit there, they'll cook you a meal even though they don't have enough for themselves, you might think I'm being romantic, but these are the true stories of workers in the field.

You have linked colonialism with the US foreign policy, and where I thought colonialisim was atrocious, you have defended both because of the supposed prize.

Thank you for calling me pious, I was beginning to think that I wasn't pious enough. Would have thought piety would be a quality to be admired for those who say "God Bless the USA".

Sorry for my anger, I'm hoping one day people will see that it doesn't have to be this way, only if we believe that will it change.

Arif

This is one of the most AMAZING and MOVING posts I have ever seen...!!!!! Awesome!

[newbie]

Right on Arif!

[Concerned]

Right on Arif!

Eloquently put Arif. Thank you for your comments. And for setting Wilbur straight.

Exactly the comment that I was hoping for when I started this thread.

[Montgomery Burns]

Probably the only thing that would scare me about Harper's foreign policy is if he gave up our sovereignty to the loathsome international criminal organization called the UN.

[geoffrey]

Don't worry Wilbur, I still have faith in you.

You make too long of posts arif buddy. I can't refute everything you say when its a mile and a half long.

Let me explain some of my own non-anti-American beliefs for you.

1) You don't have to be pro-American to be tolerant. I'm not saying you should go run through the streets with the stars and stripes singing God bless America. You don't have to be in favour of everything they do, in fact, you don't have to be in favour of anything they do. You must, however, treat them with respect.

2) Just because it's American doesn't mean its bad. The US has done many good things for the world, even when sometimes it was in their own best interest. Just because something is American, doesn't mean its the end of the world for Canada. We can learn some things from the Americans, as they can learn alot from us.

3) Personally I prefer Canada anyday, I'm not an American nor do I wish to be.

4) You can't blame America for 3rd world poverty in Africa. Remember, at the end of the day, you are responsible for your situation. I completely understand that people born poor are at a natural disadvantage. I do not under any situation though accept that all Africa needs to be poor. Botswana, South Africa, Ghana and Eygpt are all African nations that have come out on top from colonial rule. The Americans have never owned a colony. If you blame colonialism, you must look at the British and French as the true problems in 3rd world poverty.

Personally I don't buy this though. If we never got involved in the first place, they'd be just as poor or poorer. It's like they want all of our luxuries but don't want to do anything that got us here... remember, Canada was colony too. The race card can be legitamately played here, but in todays world, if you can produce a product or service at a better rate, your going to make money. Corrupt governments and dictatorial rule has stunted this growth (even though Real GDP grew 4.4% last year on average in Africa, more than Canada).

Freedom is an important element in market success. I personally believe if they are going to be set on having these thugs and hooligans running their nations they ought to switch to communism because its the only thing thats going to work in that situation. Liberation and good government are the only way free market is going to succeed in Africa, and it will one day.

5) I don't appreciate these people, such as this little anti-American possie here, being so critical but not offering any solutions. "Don't you wish you could live in a world..." is a statement of convienence, you offer no pragmatic solutions to these problems. People are trying their best. More money so that Mugabe can buy more Rolls-Royces isn't going to fill any starving stomachs. The most success has been seen though NGO's.

How are you going to fix world hunger? Reduce consumerism in North America? Sure, go sell your car and house and clothes and shoes tomorrow then talk to me about it, you might be able to convince me then.

6) The American people are some of the largest charitable donors in the west, higher than Canadians in private donations.

7) International Law is a joke. People expect the Americans to play by the rules against enemies that don't. When do we start policing those that break the law, people like Saddam and Osama?

I respect your dedication to world equity, which is not something I personally believe in, but its a noble idea none the less. I also respect your moving speech there against the status quo. The status quo isn't acceptable to me either!! I'm not happy that people are dying in Darfur and all Canada does is 'condemn the action.' What a cop out!

I don't subscribe to any of these theories that the US wants the world poor. Believe it or not, it isn't in their economic best interest. The US is an exporter of finished goods, and more consumers, means more target markets. Poor people can't consume. Maybe the US doesn't see this (I'm sure someone does if I do), but its the way they have to act. I believe in capitalism, and I believe in the end it will result in the success of Africa. But it takes time.

I'll finish with this, a bit of tough love. You can't make people stronger by building a better crutch. We have to create situations where business can thrive in these areas (many of which are resource rich) and let people work out the kinks. Let them go back to their ways of tribal living (in Canada too if they so desire), substanance farming and fishing. But dont' cry when they can't have gameboys and electricity. If they want to modernize, they can only do it through trade with the west and the US in particular.

The "white man's burden" has only created problems. Lets stop it completely and let these people build their own lives.

[Wilber]

Arif

I'm not trying to defend, apologize for or justify anything. I do enjoy my standard of living, am thankful for the opportunities I have had and those my children now have. I'm just not hypocritical about where they came from or how I come to keep them. There is nothing that makes you or me more deserving than anyone else on this planet.

You can't blame all that is rotten in the world on the US or any other country. People are largely responsible for their own actions. If we share the benefits that those "imperialist" countries past and present have brought us, we also share any responsibility and guilt that may come with them.

[Wilber]

Right on Arif!

Eloquently put Arif. Thank you for your comments. And for setting Wilbur straight.

Exactly the comment that I was hoping for when I started this thread.

Yes we know Concerned. You titled this thread "Harper's Foreign Policy" and then went on a rant about US foreign policy. It had nothing to do with Harper at all.