I am not American...

[tml12]

August1991

You wrote- " Instead, let us get on with our own life and appreciate the wonderful neighbours to the South."

I don't know how long you have lived in Canada or are old enough to experience the times which was since confederation up to 1982 in which we had a wonderful relation with the U.S.

It was a dual friendly partnership which both countries enjoyed.

That is up to the time Canada introduced Liberal official multiculturalism and veered a heavy left and used the U.S. as a scapegoat to support and fuel the basic concept of multicuturalism concerning the idea of Canada being a fully soverign country.

Part of this idea was downplaying The U.S foreign policy in order to save it's own hide concerning a dyfunctional military and to support it's home grown minorities and foreign minorties some of who hate or dislike the U.S.

As a Canadian I am embarrassed by this chain of events and sincerely hope things will return to a normal political state where the U.S. and Canada are the best of friends and sincere political allies.

Leafless,

Good post. Trudeau's policies, many of which on the domestic scale I had no problems with, encouraged moving Canada farther and farther from the United States. He was very unpopular with the U.S. right. I forget, either Nixon or Reagan, called Trudeau an "asshole" during an interview with the media.

Trudeau wanted to move Canada closer to countries in Europe with his policies...Brussels would just love those "Bilingual" Canadians, right?

I am not sure Trudeau intentionally pushed anti-Americanism on the Canadian public but it was certainly an effect (as you correctly stated) of his actions.

[newbie]

August1991

You wrote- " Instead, let us get on with our own life and appreciate the wonderful neighbours to the South."

I don't know how long you have lived in Canada or are old enough to experience the times which was since confederation up to 1982 in which we had a wonderful relation with the U.S.

It was a dual friendly partnership which both countries enjoyed.

That is up to the time Canada introduced Liberal official multiculturalism and veered a heavy left and used the U.S. as a scapegoat to support and fuel the basic concept of multicuturalism concerning the idea of Canada being a fully soverign country.

Actually we had a great time until Mulroney and Reagan came along. It was Mulroney who invoked the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1985 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-18.7/ which placed turbans on the RCMP, and opened the floodgates for minorities to lobby for anything they wanted.

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

You wrote-" Actually Trudeau and Nixon hated each others guts"

Our two countries have always had differences but we are talking anti- Americanism.

For instance Preason supported U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada.

In turn Trudeau called Pearson the "defrocked priest of peace." He also cut NATO forces in half in Europe.

Trudeau said American presence posed a danger to our national identity from a cultural , economic and even military point of view. He believed Canada's own economic interest was in relation with the rest of the world a phrase similary used to describe Canada by Quebec as the rest of Canada.

In the U.S Trudeau was considered a pacifist and some who thought of him has nothing more than a communist.

Under Trudeau's era he had to support Quebec nationalism which is a take off of the Napoleonic Legal Code or Quebec's own version of it and a province that never did like the U.S.

It is this combination concerning multiculturilism, Quebec, immigrants and the Liberal governments of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin that carried the Liberal anti-American theme to new heights in Canada under a heavy left wing agenda.

[tml12]

BubberMiley,

"Actually, Trudeau and Nixon hated each other's guts."

That's true, but why the actually? I am not sure that Leafless implied anything differently.

"Before that, Pearson and Johnson hated each other's guts."

Not really though. It is true that Pearson was not a fan of Vietnam and after a speech in Philadelphia where Pearson criticized the Johnson administration, Johnson told Pearson "you pissed on my rug." However, the two countries generally respected each other and the issue was mainly seen as a partisan foreign policy disagreement, what with Pearson and the Nobel Prize.

"Eisenhauer and Diefenbaker got along but were wary of each other. King and FDR were by no means close (King resented U.S. reluctance to enter the war and then their subsequent taking credit for winning it)."

Again, wariness between federal leaders does not imply relations were tense between the people of both countries. My parents told me a story once where they were in a Montreal restaurant in late November in the 1960s and there was part of the restaurant reserved for, as the restaurant put it, "any of our American cousins," who may come along on vacation. And, I may add, you should know the Americans were a big part of the Allies winning WW II and everyone knows it.

"Before that, the two countries were largely isolated from each other by trade, and their relations were strained by this concept called Manifest Destiny, all the way back to the war of 1812, where they had a bit of a disagreement."

Relations were strained in 1812... ...but you forget (or deliberately disregard) the fact that in that 130 year interval Americans and Canadians crossed the border freely and immigrants from Europe in those countries became great friends.

Bottom line: Trudeau planted the seeds of anti-Americanism that Chretien gladly watered...Martin cared for the garden.

It's time for Harper to "prune the flowers" and plant his own seeds of pro-American/Canadian relations which will hopefully flourish in the future...

[tml12]

August1991

You wrote- " Instead, let us get on with our own life and appreciate the wonderful neighbours to the South."

I don't know how long you have lived in Canada or are old enough to experience the times which was since confederation up to 1982 in which we had a wonderful relation with the U.S.

It was a dual friendly partnership which both countries enjoyed.

That is up to the time Canada introduced Liberal official multiculturalism and veered a heavy left and used the U.S. as a scapegoat to support and fuel the basic concept of multicuturalism concerning the idea of Canada being a fully soverign country.

Actually we had a great time until Mulroney and Reagan came along. It was Mulroney who invoked the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1985 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-18.7/ which placed turbans on the RCMP, and opened the floodgates for minorities to lobby for anything they wanted.

Another leftist who forgets that Mulrooney's Conservatives are not the CPC.

[BubberMiley]

Another leftist who forgets that Mulrooney's Conservatives are not the CPC.

That's what I've been saying all along.

[Leafless]

newbie

You wrote- " It was Mulroney who invoked the Canadian Multicuturalism Act in 1985-which placed turbans on the RCMP and opened the floodgates for minorities for anything they wanted."

Good point newbie!

Mulroney might have rubber stamped it but gues who CREATED IT.

The Liberals Pierre Trudeau who created it basically concerning the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicuturalism or the (B&B report 1971).

It went through two stages the formative stage (1971-1981) and the instiltutionalization stage (1982-to present).

I know what your going to say newbie--all good things come from prime ministers out of Quebec.

[tml12]

newbie

You wrote- " It was Mulroney who invoked the Canadian Multicuturalism Act in 1985-which placed turbans on the RCMP and opened the floodgates for minorities for anything they wanted."

Good point newbie!

Mulroney might have rubber stamped it but gues who CREATED IT.

The Liberals Pierre Trudeau who created it basically concerning the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicuturalism or the (B&B report 1971).

It went through two stages the formative stage (1971-1981) and the instiltutionalization stage (1982-to present).

I know what your going to say newbie--all good things come from prime ministers out of Quebec.

Leafless,

Better not remind the lefties about the 1969 White Paper...

[Leafless]

tml12

You wrote- " Better not remind the lefties about the 1969 White paper."

The Aboriginals really loved it.

http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/indian_act.htm

http://www.redwiremag.com/yesmaster.htm

But what else was Mulroney given to rubber stamp as a reminder of Pierre Trudeau?

This was if I remember correctly was the Affirmative Action Program a program that Mr.Trudeau created another Liberal Royal Commission under the chair of Judge Rosalie Abella which resulted in 1984 that Commission's report titled "Equality in Employment"

In 1986 three major inititives were announced in response to the Abella report:

(1) Employment Equity Act

(2) Federal Contractors Program

(3) Employment Equity Policy

The patriation of our Constitution seemed to be for the sole purpose to include a revamped federal human rights code called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms one that in combination with the Multiculturalism Act and the Employment Equity Act seemed to be successful in the assimilation of the majority English into Liberalism ideologies creating the net effect of reverse discrimination.

[Black Dog]

Much is made of this war Bush apparently started. Countries founded on ideals such as America don't start wars.

Whew. Thank goodness. Somebody tell the families of the thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans that it was just a dream...a dream....a dream...

[BubberMiley]

BubberMiley,

"Actually, Trudeau and Nixon hated each other's guts."

That's true, but why the actually? I am not sure that Leafless implied anything differently.

Leafless said, "before 1982 the two countries had "wonderful relations." Nixon wasn't president after 1974.

"Before that, Pearson and Johnson hated each other's guts."

Not really though. It is true that Pearson was not a fan of Vietnam and after a speech in Philadelphia where Pearson criticized the Johnson administration, Johnson told Pearson "you pissed on my rug." However, the two countries generally respected each other and the issue was mainly seen as a partisan foreign policy disagreement, what with Pearson and the Nobel Prize.

Johnson thought Pearson was queer and distrusted him.

Again, wariness between federal leaders does not imply relations were tense between the people of both countries. My parents told me a story once where they were in a Montreal restaurant in late November in the 1960s and there was part of the restaurant reserved for, as the restaurant put it, "any of our American cousins," who may come along on vacation. And, I may add, you should know the Americans were a big part of the Allies winning WW II and everyone knows it.

Exactly, wariness between federal leaders does not imply relations are tense between the people. And disagreements over policy do not imply that there is racist or anti-American sentiment. There are a few nutcases out there on both sides of the border. If you watch FoxNews, they're mostly over there. But just because Fox or Tucker Carlson or Anne Coulter decide to go on anti-Canadian rants doesn't mean they're ideas are popular, just as anti-Americanism is by no means popular here (at least where I come from). The relations between the people of our two countries are as strong as ever, and to imply they aren't for political purposes (basically just to smear the Liberals) does that relationship no good at all.

[Concerned]

This anti-Americanism in Canada has to stop. It is small, cette petitesse. It is counter-productive and wrong-headed.

"anti-Americanism" has to be put in context.

America's supreme expertise is promotion which includes hype, mis-representation and sheer fantasy. Anyone who tries to inject any reality is immediately labelled as Anti-American when all that they are displaying is healthy scepticism rather than blind Groupthink.

Thanks Flashman

[Concerned]

This anti-Americanism in Canada has to stop. It is small, cette petitesse. It is counter-productive and wrong-headed.

"anti-Americanism" has to be put in context.

America's supreme expertise is promotion which includes hype, mis-representation and sheer fantasy. Anyone who tries to inject any reality is immediately labelled as Anti-American when all that they are displaying is healthy scepticism rather than blind Groupthink.

You then must put the criticism in context. When I drive down to Plattsburgh and I am in some bar or diner and I criticize Bush policy, the most likely response I'll get from an American liberal is agreement and from an American conservative is a political debate.

Not once has anyone in the States ever called me "anti-American" or denied my right or some American liberal's right to criticize Bush policy.

I think most Canadians, especially on the left, are reported exaggerated events in the states by a heavily left-leading MSM.

I think you should keep your views as your own and I don't think you should be making comments about what "most Canadians" think. It's fine to express your opinions, but don't be so vane as to think that most Canadians share them.

[geoffrey]

This anti-Americanism in Canada has to stop. It is small, cette petitesse. It is counter-productive and wrong-headed.

"anti-Americanism" has to be put in context.

America's supreme expertise is promotion which includes hype, mis-representation and sheer fantasy. Anyone who tries to inject any reality is immediately labelled as Anti-American when all that they are displaying is healthy scepticism rather than blind Groupthink.

You then must put the criticism in context. When I drive down to Plattsburgh and I am in some bar or diner and I criticize Bush policy, the most likely response I'll get from an American liberal is agreement and from an American conservative is a political debate.

Not once has anyone in the States ever called me "anti-American" or denied my right or some American liberal's right to criticize Bush policy.

I think most Canadians, especially on the left, are reported exaggerated events in the states by a heavily left-leading MSM.

I think you should keep your views as your own and I don't think you should be making comments about what "most Canadians" think. It's fine to express your opinions, but don't be so vane as to think that most Canadians share them.

What are you talking about exactly?

[Concerned]

BubberMiley,

"Actually, Trudeau and Nixon hated each other's guts."

That's true, but why the actually? I am not sure that Leafless implied anything differently.

Leafless said, "before 1982 the two countries had "wonderful relations." Nixon wasn't president after 1974.

"Before that, Pearson and Johnson hated each other's guts."

Not really though. It is true that Pearson was not a fan of Vietnam and after a speech in Philadelphia where Pearson criticized the Johnson administration, Johnson told Pearson "you pissed on my rug." However, the two countries generally respected each other and the issue was mainly seen as a partisan foreign policy disagreement, what with Pearson and the Nobel Prize.

Johnson thought Pearson was queer and distrusted him.

Again, wariness between federal leaders does not imply relations were tense between the people of both countries. My parents told me a story once where they were in a Montreal restaurant in late November in the 1960s and there was part of the restaurant reserved for, as the restaurant put it, "any of our American cousins," who may come along on vacation. And, I may add, you should know the Americans were a big part of the Allies winning WW II and everyone knows it.

Exactly, wariness between federal leaders does not imply relations are tense between the people. And disagreements over policy do not imply that there is racist or anti-American sentiment. There are a few nutcases out there on both sides of the border. If you watch FoxNews, they're mostly over there. But just because Fox or Tucker Carlson or Anne Coulter decide to go on anti-Canadian rants doesn't mean they're ideas are popular, just as anti-Americanism is by no means popular here (at least where I come from). The relations between the people of our two countries are as strong as ever, and to imply they aren't for political purposes (basically just to smear the Liberals) does that relationship no good at all.

Bubber: You are so right here....to talk critically about American foreign policy has nothing to do with hatred or relations with its people. I do not hate Americans and I do not consider myself anti-American. Do I think very critically about American foreign policy ?? Absolutely. Do I think American's are mislead by their leaders through fear based politicking and a money and power driven media ? Yup. Do I think that both Canadians and Americans should openly discuss and criticise for the sake of democracy...ok, yes.

TML12: you would better gain respect for your opinions if you quit shoving them off onto others and bashing others for having a different opinion than your own. Why don't you just state your opinion and we will read it and learn from it. If you are so defensive that you have to launch an offensive than what does that say about your confidence in your own opinion ??

[tml12]

Concerned,

I will officially call a truce with you on this thread because you have misunderstood my posts and because I don't think what I have written has gotten through to you.

I am not shoving my opinions onto you. You represent someone on the left and me someone on the right. I am not trying to turn you into someone who is right-wing. Rather, I am trying to help you understand things that I think you're missing. You took Bill O'Reilly's quote out of context and you seem to believe that Ann Coulter speaks for mainstream America. I mean, if Condoleeza Rice made those comments, I would shut up and back you 100%.

I may well be influenced by right-wing media. But then, you are influenced by left-wing media. That is our partisan flaw, right? We like hearing people on TV and reading about people and congregating behind people on this forum (like you with Bubber and flashman and me with moderateamericain and geoffrey) who we believe share similar beliefs and concerns as we do.

I respect your opinions and your right to have them. Perhaps the U.S. (and Canada for that matter) are too complicated for one single right or left-wing interpretation.

[gerryhatrick]

This anti-Americanism in Canada has to stop.

What "anti-Americanism"?

All this BS about anti-Americanism smacks of American rightwingers accusing democrats of supporting terrorists.

What anti-Americanism are you talking about? Harper telling the US ambassador that he gets his mandate from the Canadian people, not the US ambassador?

There is a lie that is repeated over and over by people of a particular political bent in Canada that Canadians are "anti-American".

If a person opposes George Bush and his policies, they are not anti-American. A large majority of Americans don't approve of him at the moment, in fact.

In fact, a person can INSULT George Bush and not be anti-American.

Get off the divisive pot and start making sense.

[tml12]

Gerry,

"What "anti-Americanism"?"

Where in this country do you live?

"All this BS about anti-Americanism smacks of American rightwingers accusing democrats of supporting terrorists."

Anti-Americanism is prevalent in this country. If you haven't heard it then you haven't been listening for it.

"What anti-Americanism are you talking about? Harper telling the US ambassador that he gets his mandate from the Canadian people, not the US ambassador?"

No one accused Harper of being anti-American and that is not what we're talking about here.

"There is a lie that is repeated over and over by people of a particular political bent in Canada that Canadians are "anti-American"."

Canadian sovereignty is based on the fact that Canada isn't the U.S. Recently that has changed into a pandemic of anti-Americanism.

"If a person opposes George Bush and his policies, they are not anti-American. A large majority of Americans don't approve of him at the moment, in fact."

You're absolutely correct...I don't approve of him.

"In fact, a person can INSULT George Bush and not be anti-American.

Get off the divisive pot and start making sense."

But insults against the U.S. are not only against Bush, they are stereotypes against the American people. Yeah, Bush is a redneck. There is nothing wrong with that...but he is. And he's a hawk. It is what it is. But Bush's home state is Texas, not a northern state. Too many Canadians say the average American is like Bush, how often have we heard the Americans are a bunch of gun-toting Bible-thumping rednecks who only care about themselves and are engrossed in their hedonistic cutthroat conservative consumerist society, while Canadians are "kind and gentle" looking out for their fellow citizen and living in a laid back society.

It's bull and it always has been. People aren't ready to recognize it here though, and that was the point of August's post. He's dead-on and I stand by him.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry,

"What anti-Americanism are you talking about? Harper telling the US ambassador that he gets his mandate from the Canadian people, not the US ambassador?"

No one accused Harper of being anti-American and that is not what we're talking about here.

good grief man. That was the whole point. Harper makes a play at the US ambassador over Arctic sovereignty, and nobody calls it anti-American. It was no better or worse than much of the political stuff that Martin or Chretien did which was labelled anti-American by rightwing partisans.

You asked what area of the country I'm from. Irrelavent. I travel throughout the nation. You asked because you claim "anti-Americanism" is rampent in Canada.

I say the constant claims of "anti-Americanism" are being made by self-loathing Canadians to ashamed to be proud and recognize that critisism of the USA or Canadian pride OR harmless comedy/humor are NOT anti-Americanism.

I asked you once, and all you did in response was ask where I live...

WHAT anti-Americanism? Be specific. Explain how anti-Americanism is rampent in Canada. I've been all over and I don't see it.

I see a lot of disgust towards Bush and what he's done. Would you classify that as anti-Americanism??

thx.

[August1991]

Much is made of this war Bush apparently started. Countries founded on ideals such as America don't start wars.

Whew. Thank goodness. Somebody tell the families of the thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans that it was just a dream...a dream....a dream...

BD, the last place American soldiers want to be is in Iraq. There is nothing they would like more than to come home.

The Americans did not go to Iraq to colonize it or to create a 51st state. The Americans will not claim ownership over Iraq's oil, nor of the royalties from its exploitation. The Americans are not in Iraq so that American oil companies can sign production contracts. Americans know well that they can make much greater profits by voluntary trades.

The US government invaded Iraq because it perceived Saddam Hussein as a threat. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

----

A society that allows the individual to be as free as possible is a society that is civilized and peaceful. I don't think this ideal is dead in America. Webblogs and forums on the Internet are the latest incarnation of this American ideal.

[newbie]

The Americans will not claim ownership over Iraq's oil, nor of the royalties from its exploitation. The Americans are not in Iraq so that American oil companies can sign production contracts.

The US government invaded Iraq because it perceived Saddam Hussein as a threat. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

August, if Saddam was such a threat, why didn't the pre-invasion plan include the guarding of Al Qa Qaa, a huge munitions dump. After all, wasn't most of Iraq's oil refineries heavily protected? And why no guarding of the certain borders, say like Syria, just in case those peskly WMD's might wander awry?

[geoffrey]

The Americans will not claim ownership over Iraq's oil, nor of the royalties from its exploitation. The Americans are not in Iraq so that American oil companies can sign production contracts.

The US government invaded Iraq because it perceived Saddam Hussein as a threat. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

August, if Saddam was such a threat, why didn't the pre-invasion plan include the guarding of Al Qa Qaa, a huge munitions dump. After all, wasn't most of Iraq's oil refineries heavily protected? And why no guarding of the certain borders, say like Syria, just in case those peskly WMD's might wander awry?

They only had so many troops to cover so many places. If there is one criticism, it was no bring enough troops into Iraq.

Did you want the oil refineries not protected so we could have a much worse repeat of Gulf War 1 and put out fires for the next 30 years at a cost of trillions of dollars to the impoverished Iraqi people?

You sound like some conspiracy theorist, how ridiculous.

[Black Dog]

BD, the last place American soldiers want to be is in Iraq. There is nothing they would like more than to come home.

No kidding. But then, they ain't the one's calling the shots, are they?

The Americans did not go to Iraq to colonize it or to create a 51st state. The Americans will not claim ownership over Iraq's oil, nor of the royalties from its exploitation. The Americans are not in Iraq so that American oil companies can sign production contracts. Americans know well that they can make much greater profits by voluntary trades.

The US government invaded Iraq because it perceived Saddam Hussein as a threat. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I know you're a naif, August but this...this is something.

No one precieved Saddam Hussein as a threat. As Chris Rock said "If Iraq was such a threat why did it only take two weeks to take over thE whole motherfu**king country?"

Iraq was invaded precisely because it was not a threat: it was a sitting duck sitting on a whole lot of oil.

It blows my mind that people who consider temselves educated and politically aware can look at the global situation today (oil prices climbing amid fears of dwindling supplies; a rising power in China eager with a growing thirst for the stuff; a self-described "addiction" to oil on the part of the world's largets economy and consumer) and shrug off the influence of this most vital commodity on the decision to go to war. In the context of history, and with any knowledge of military or geopolitical strategy, oil is the only reason that makes any sense.

[newbie]

The Americans will not claim ownership over Iraq's oil, nor of the royalties from its exploitation. The Americans are not in Iraq so that American oil companies can sign production contracts.

The US government invaded Iraq because it perceived Saddam Hussein as a threat. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

August, if Saddam was such a threat, why didn't the pre-invasion plan include the guarding of Al Qa Qaa, a huge munitions dump. After all, wasn't most of Iraq's oil refineries heavily protected? And why no guarding of the certain borders, say like Syria, just in case those peskly WMD's might wander awry?

They only had so many troops to cover so many places. If there is one criticism, it was no bring enough troops into Iraq.

Gee, why is that? They botched that. They had more than enough troops. That was the point of my post. Duh.

[moderateamericain]

The Americans will not claim ownership over Iraq's oil, nor of the royalties from its exploitation. The Americans are not in Iraq so that American oil companies can sign production contracts.

The US government invaded Iraq because it perceived Saddam Hussein as a threat. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

August, if Saddam was such a threat, why didn't the pre-invasion plan include the guarding of Al Qa Qaa, a huge munitions dump. After all, wasn't most of Iraq's oil refineries heavily protected? And why no guarding of the certain borders, say like Syria, just in case those peskly WMD's might wander awry?

They only had so many troops to cover so many places. If there is one criticism, it was no bring enough troops into Iraq.

Gee, why is that? They botched that. They had more than enough troops. That was the point of my post. Duh.

Methinks you never were in the military to make a statment like that. Do you know how large a borde iraq has? Theres no way in hell we could cover that entire border of iraq unless we ordered up a draft of 100,000 plus men.