Harper's Foreign Policy ?

[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.

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.

Sure it did. Harper and his party and its ideologies are similar to Bush's neo-conservatives. Harper is very much a Bush supporter and Bush is happier than a pig in slop that Harper is now in power ( to the extent that he cares about Canada at all, but he's a pig in slop anyways).

I'm sure that you were one of the supporters of the Iraq war and I'm sure you would have been pleased to have seen Harper back the Americans in their attack.

[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.

Sure it did. Harper and his party and its ideologies are similar to Bush's neo-conservatives. Harper is very much a Bush supporter and Bush is happier than a pig in slop that Harper is now in power ( to the extent that he cares about Canada at all, but he's a pig in slop anyways).

I'm sure that you were one of the supporters of the Iraq war and I'm sure you would have been pleased to have seen Harper back the Americans in their attack.

When you actually have some Harper foreign policy to talk about, get back to us.

[scribblet]

I posted this on another website http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/index.html in response to an American's posting who praised Harper and his support of American Right Wing Idealisms including US invasion of Iraq:

In short, it is very clear to me why this American friend is posting on this website in support of Harper. The right wing here in Canada would be in favour with the agenda of the US administration for economic dominance, which inevitably includes control of Canadian resources.

He does, he will - coulda fooled me.

[tml12]

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.

Sure it did. Harper and his party and its ideologies are similar to Bush's neo-conservatives. Harper is very much a Bush supporter and Bush is happier than a pig in slop that Harper is now in power ( to the extent that he cares about Canada at all, but he's a pig in slop anyways).

I'm sure that you were one of the supporters of the Iraq war and I'm sure you would have been pleased to have seen Harper back the Americans in their attack.

When you actually have some Harper foreign policy to talk about, get back to us.

Agreed. I don't believe Harper has sold half this country to the Americans yet as the left would like him to do as quickly as possible so they can get their extreme protectionist paranoid Liberal government in to "save" Canada.

[arif]

Geoffrey,

yes, I know I'm sorry about the length of the post. I'll try to address your responses concisely if possible! lol, I believe we've entered a constructive dialogue. Thanks for the encouragement newbie, ccgirl, concerned.

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.

I had this discussion with my american cousin this morning. The issue of respect for American citizens, for me, is not a question - I have always maintained my respect for the people, and I would wish that all that are critical of the foreign policy maintain that too. Americans themselves who are critical of their government maintain respect for each other in a civil society, one would expect and hope. As Mark Twain said "loyalty to your country always, loyalty to your government when it deserves it." Thus, when MLK led civil disobedience, it was out of tremendous respect for the people, and you could say even respect for the government by being non-violent and making them accountable to their own constitution.

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.

Agreed completely, never said anything different. The idea I'm opposing is that there is anything wrong with criticizing what they have done badly. If I have to qualify this with all the good things they are doing when I post, it would be even longer! We should be able to deal with criticism without applying the "anit-American" label, because if all criticism is simply labeled this way, it is discarded, hence no legitimate criticism allowed, and power without being accountable to dissent and criticism is a very dangerous thing.

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

Me too, why do you feel this way?

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.

A fair answer to this is very long. It was Wilber who made the comparison to colonialism with the argument that we somehow owe our own freedoms and prosperity to a foreign policy that does not take into account its negative effects on freedoms and prosperity of other nations, and that not taking them into account is a necessary condition for achieving this. My own approach to criticism is not to focus on blame, there are plenty of corrupt governments in the Third World, and there are apects of many cultures and ideologies that hamper people's emancipation. Although a critique of third world leadership is useful, it seems more useful to criticize the policies of one's own governments and allies, since we have more power and right to change those, for if we were to play the blame game, a legitimate defense of someone who is being blamed is tell the blamer to look in the mirror. We want to take that defense of corrupt leaders away, by presenting a policy with ethics and integrity. Also, ethically, I think we cannot enable corruption, as with Mobutu. Mobutu had a personal fortune greater than that of the budget of the Congo, yet (republican-controlled) World Bank loans flowed into his Swiss Bank Accounts as a reward for his cooperation in proxy wars of the Cold War, even as the Americans installed Mobutu in the first place. The American are responsible for their situation, they've helped create the utter instability in the world, and now it's threatening them. If you want people to be responsible for their situation, you have to understand the power that you have to destroy the possibility of choice, for without choice, there cannot be responsibility.

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).

I'm not going to argue the hypothetical world where we didn't get involved. We are involved, but the thing is that we have the opportunity to do things differently, and the argument that we would lose something that way, I don't buy. The current coffee crisis is such that a grower cannot make money when their products price on world markets fall below the cost of production, furthermore local growers of food crops cannot often compete with agricultural imports that have been subsidizied by Northern countries. Is a free market really free under these conditions, the term free should stand for more than just the freedom of large corporations to do whatever they want, but the freedom of opportunity that you mention, but sadly is not the reality.

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.

I agree with the second part, but it is not the people who are set on thugs and hooligans, they would gladly rid themselves of them, I'm not following it closely but I think that governance is improving in Africa. Yet, when people elect a government, they're not aware of the corruption the leaders are capable of. We elected Chretien twice!!

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.

I'm glad you asked, since this post is getting long, I'll start a new thread on proposed solutions. I commend you in saying that about aid money flowing to governments, I'm against a focus on aid, though I don't rule it out. It's not good enough to say that they're trying their best, when they could do much better. And that is the essence of critique, to encourage them to do better. I'm glad you raised these points so fairly, I've been thinking a lot about criticism, critical thinking and critique.

The things I've said about the consequences of the policies are true, and that was not contested, rather an argument for "the ends justify the means" was presented. Yet if we are to proceed in a dialogue, we should move beyond criticism to critical thinking, and there is a good model of critique that I like which is a) charity - attempting to understand the argument, identifying it's strengths and truths, criticism - identifying the problems with the argument, c) synthesis or integration - where possible constructing a new argument from the strengths and criticism, or integrating the best points of the argument which seems less adequate into the stronger argument. New knowledge is then created rather than just back and forth repetition of ideological standpoints. Thus, we don't need to refute, rather rebut.

So, if you agree with me that things could be better in the world, while still being good in North America, let us proceed!!

Oh shoot, you have more and some really good points, I can't get to it, I guess you're post was pretty long too!! lol!

in great peace, with great respect,

Arif

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.

[wellandboy]

I think Harper's declaration to defend Arctic sovereignty speaks volumes. The digressions into American imperialism are irrelevant to the original question, but certainly passionate none the less.

[arif]

I have to say I agree with Harper's position on not dealing with the lunatics Hamas, elected or not, though I believe we should not sever our efforts to achieve peace in the region, even if it means working around them.

The right to protection of life for civilians seems more basic than other civil liberties, so it is contradictory to allow a party to run when they support killing civilians.

I have an absolute revulsion of Hamas, Israel made a bad mistake in helping them develop years ago, but we have to move forward somehow, it's very scary, but canada cannot deal with them in principle.

There is a Jewish-Arab potluck discussion group, I'm going to join, at least we can show them that in the right context that these things can be discussed peacefully.

As a Muslim, I want to convey my deepest sympathies to both the Israelis and Palestinians who did not support Hamas, for their difficult situation. I condemn the terrorists, a) killing oneself is against Islam, killing innocents is against Islam, and c) it is not possible to make oneself a martyr, that is up to God.

check out www.peacemakers.org, and google free muslims!

In peace,

Arif