Who Hates the USA?

[gnam]

Actually, for the record... Diefenbaker was the last canadian PM to run on a Canadian Nationalist platform... a platform that emphasized the necessity for Canadian political decision making to operate with a reasonable degree of sovereignty in its relationship to US economic, political, and military interest. The fact that the big D wanted to retain and promote a strong sense of "pro-canadianess" is no evidence of anti-americanism unless you are trying to persuade us all that insofar as canadian interests are not interpreted as lining up with US interest, Canadians are 'anti-american.' Keep in mind, after all, that it was our beloved hero L.B. Pearson who succeeded Dief and then proceeded to sell Canada out to US Nuclear aspirations... arming the Canadian North and getting canada into the game of nuclear proliferation. Friends don't need to hold their tongues when they think the other is acting like a jerk. Maybe the U.S. should stop crying about canadian anti US bigotry and get involved in it's own politics when it's closest trading partner and long time friend begins wondering aloud if our good friend is not just alittle 'wrong in the head.'

That's odd, I could have sworn Diefenbaker played the anti-american card in 1963 big time.

Anti-americanism is not new.

[gnam]

Near as I can tell the best thing to to when state-corporate-capitalism (Re: fascism--not to be confused with Nazism) begins to take root as the dominant ideology for an entire continent is what many before us have done who had the forsight to read the writing on the wall. I didn't bother voting in the absence of choice. I left the continent. I am now safe, comfortable, and free to pursue my interests far, far away from the n. american nightmare. That said, I continue to hold out a hope against all probability that things will improve back home. I can only hope that the pursuit of my interest might have some positive effect over there... heheh. Don't I sound the smug, cowardly little pedant... heheh.

As far as 2004 goes, you have to remember .

My argument goes equally to the people on this side of the border. We now have a minority Conservative government, put into Ottawa with 36% of the popular vote. What did the remaining 64% of voters do beyond presenting themselves on election day? I'm one of those voters and ask myself: Did I talk enough to acquaintances about the issues? Did I write enough to the various politicians and candidates? Did I send enough letters to the editor? I can't help but think that if I and the other 64% of voters had done more, we would have had a different outcome, one that in fact reflects the majority.

Well, hopefully the next gov't will be a CPC majority, and I do my bit honest

[jbg]

I dont think Canadians hate the US . . . yet.

However many Europeans do.

Oh yes. The Europeans (I mean France, Belgium, Germany, Austria mostly) still revel in a pre-1914 fantasy world where the "civilized world" revolved around Europe and who controlled it. They bitterly resent that a country barely a blip on the radar in 1914, the United States, wound up controlling the post WW II "Pax Americana" as a result of Old Europe's magnum opus of carving themselves up fratricidally and suicidally in two World Wars (that themselves followed almost 1000 years of almost continuous warfare among royals).

This is envy, and nostalgia, pure and simple. The fact that half the world may not know the name of Germany's Chancellor, France's PM and/or President or Austria's Chancellor while names such as Bush, Blair or even Harper and Howard are household words is galling. As an American, if the isolationists in America (and their brie and chablis buddies in France) want the US out of the Middle East, maybe we should pull our welfare, err, bases, out of Germany. Boy would that be an economic treat.

Albeit those in favour of free market, corporations and those in favour of US invasion with its coerced democracy.

Coerced democracy as in what Germany, Austria, Japan, Poland, Hungary and Ukraine are now enjoying, thanks to the English-speaking blood of WW II and the efforts of the English-speaking world in the Cold War? Is that what you mean?

Thus we are speaking of over half the US population. US invasion is what is found apalling since many do read world history and can identify the many lying excuses he US uses to cover its ass. It insists upon re-writing history especially since the gulf war to justify rolling in the tanks all over the mid east. However, the worst offender has been the US accusing whole nations of harbouring terrorists withoue any proof. Look at iraq - An incredible embarrasment to many first world countries let alone the weight of the horror.

What's better, a small amount of American-caused casualties (or underwear over prisoners' heads) or the thousands Saddam fed into wood chippers whenever he was in a bad mood?

Gore would have been a far better choice. Though of course he would have been pressured by the large internal Jewish lobby group, right wing think tanks and more to compromise his stand point. I dont know if he could have stood the pressure - then. The majority of the US citizens are at least honest enough to vote for a lieing cowaboy hick to lead in the hijaking of the world!!! No gushy liberal, heart rendering speaches for them!!

I'm Jewish. I didn't know that I had that kind of power. Thanks for telling me.

Still, i do feel sorry for those that happen to be lumbered in America's blood bath of a melting pot serving its authoritarian democracy.

Bloodbath of a melting pot? I live in an affluent Jewish village, which is cheek-by-jowls with a somewhat grungier Hispanic and Italian village. I don't see a bloodbath; I see people working, playing, socializing, making money and fun together.

[yam]

Such a bunch of subjective, emotionally charged twaddle.

Typical yankee.

Bush relies on the "right wing" lobbyists in the US for a large percentage of his vote. Its a fact whether you like it or not.

The cold war was built upon US paranoia - everybody knows that - across all the political spectrum.

yes europe has been a bastard. nobody was saying that it has not.

In fact its finished its colonising except for stupid Blair in the UK

The US has never stopped colonising - to this day.

And no . . . the Europeans do not resent the US influence in WW11 because and ts 'belated' activity in the first world war. Im not certain how old you are . . . but - surely those that were involved and bitter are now dead anyway. Europeans see the wars and subsequent geographical divisions as a pointless war effort divide made for the ruling class. Alas.

Its only you US citizens and zionists that cannot see this - due to your love of power.

Dont go blathering archaic Sir Lancelot ideologies to me, get off your 'high donkey' and try weening yourself off the milky teet of Fox tv.

[gnam]

Bloodbath of a melting pot? I live in an affluent Jewish village, which is cheek-by-jowls with a somewhat grungier Hispanic and Italian village. I don't see a bloodbath; I see people working, playing, socializing, making money and fun together.

Nobody asked you about your quaint little neighborhood... However, if you wanted to witness the american bloodbath perhaps you might apply for residency in Bagdad. Lucky for you, you'll have missed the first 100,000 or so lives crushed under the boots of the American Empire's 'marching freedom'; not to worry though, I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from.

[gnam]

One more thing... maybe we should try to agree on exactly what constitutes anti-americanism. "Anti-American" can't possibly be the term meant to describe the general dismay, regret, and disagreement that many Canadians have expressed in regard to US policy, decision-making, and global action can it? If that were the case then one would logically be lead to the conclusion that the US media is actively involved in a continental propaganda campaign designed to discourage and suppress dissent in the Americas... very 1984 and something that I'm sure the United States would never be involved in... right??? If Americans are upset because some Canadians think that US democracy is faltering and that current US international policy represents a threat to global peace, perhaps Americans need to take a moment to try and understand why this might suddenly seem to be the case in a country that has traditionally lined up in support of, rather than against, US policies in general. Something has happened over the past decade to cause Canadians to be more vocal about their displeasure with US international policies, regardless of whether Canadians have traditionally agreed or disagreed with American policy. What that something might be is what ought to be up for discussion. Please, try not to get caught up in mindless Rush-Limbuagh-style-left vs. right-rhetoric. It reinforces the common misconception among Canadians that Americans are stupid and shallow people. In addition, it is counterproductive both for US/Canada relations as well as for the intellectual health of America. The U.S. and Canada had very good public relations during the Mulroney/Reagan era and the Canadian Mulroney government was far more liberal than any government that has come to power in that country since.

In any case, I think there is a lack of clarity regarding just what americans are charging Canadians with when they claim that anti-americanism is growing in canada. After all, Americans are generally welcomed when they attempt to cross canadian borders. In my experience Americans are usually treated well when visiting, living, and working in Canada. They are rarely if ever, as a result of their citizenship, the targets of public abuse, violence, or marginalization even remotely similar to the poor treatment that many other groups recieve in Canada and the United states both historically and regularly. In fact, I would feel much safer and more welcome as an American visiting almost anywhere in Canada than a Canadian might in the state of Florida, where Canadians are routinely targeted by thieves and murderers. Furthermore, Canada and the United States continue to work together on a number of continental issues (ie. resource sharing, pollution standards, trade agreements) regardless of the fact that there have been a few snags of late. This is not exactly the kind of behavior one would expect from a country rife with 'freedom-hating evildoers.'

Additionally, one might look to countries that are openly (or semi-openly) anti-american for an example of so called anti-americanism. Iraq: American soldiers and civilians routinely kidnapped and killed. US flag and other symbols often publicly burned or destroyed. Pakistan: See Iraq. Afghanistan: See Iraq. A number of small african countries: See Iraq. China: Openly opposes and often competes with or railroads American foreign policy while maintaining surface diplomacy that drips with insincere goodwill. Actively engaged in subduing the American economy... aided and abetted by George W. Bush. Russia: See China... except the economy part. Actively exporting illegal underground businesses all over N.America. North Korea: Opposes any American contact and threatens the US with long range rockets. Hmmm.... the list could go on, and on, and on.... but why belabour the point.

What is beginning to seem more and more clear is that Canada is simply not what one might call anti-american. Canadians may think that american foreign (and perhaps domestic) policy is idiotic and suicidal, and they are entitled to that opinion whether they are citizens of the US or not. That does not make Canadians hostile to the united states or her democratic project. It makes them critical... which is better than being religious fundamentalist reactionaries. As Americans one needs to ask oneself why this position is gaining in popularity on a global scale, not whether people have the right to hold that opinion. However, addressing this question can never take place as long as we are pre-ocuppied with our poor bruised little ego over a few harsh words from our friends to the North.

[gnam]

The really blatent anti-Americanism started when the US invaded Iraq - I noticed a disturbing change in the public discourse around that time. The same thing happened in almost every democratic country in the world which suggests the change was not caused by something unique to Canada.

This is exactly the change I noticed around the time the Iraq war started. I agree that being hostile towards an entire country because of the actions of a near lunatic chief executive is not called for. However, Americans should ask themselves, if their foriegn policy can provoke such a reaction in a culturally similar country like Canada then it is should not be surpising how people react in the Islamic world.

First of all, Bush is not "near-lunatic". It is of vital importance to fight radical Islamism (really the successor to cold-War communism) on their turf rather than ours. While concededly Saddam was not involved in the 911 attacks, and may not have gotten that far along the nuclear road, there is no question that both the geographic centrality of the country and the presence of a largely educated population made it a prime candidate for regime change.

Eventually the methods of the colonial era must inevitably be restored; local control on local matters, with a liberal smattering of Western bases. That part of the world is too important and too dangerous to allow it to be so badly misgoverned.

Hey JBG,

Just a a little curious on one point. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us all regarding the relevant connections that you believe exist between cold-war communism and radical islamic movements. I've never heard that connection made (except as just one more supervillain for the super USA to save the world from) in such a way as I have been able to wrap my puny little mind around the progressive historical ties, as it were, between the two.

[Black Dog]

What's better, a small amount of American-caused casualties (or underwear over prisoners' heads) or the thousands Saddam fed into wood chippers whenever he was in a bad mood?

Saddam never fed anyone into wood chippers. As for the rest, a better question would be: "what's better: a stable, but brutal secular regime with no ability to project power beyond its borders or a war on that regime that will cost tens of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, create a civil war, wreaken liberal values (by weakening the traditional proscriptions on acts such as torture), increase the power and influence of a brutal neighbouring regime (Iran) and destabalize the entire region?"

First of all, Bush is not "near-lunatic". It is of vital importance to fight radical Islamism (really the successor to cold-War communism) on their turf rather than ours. While concededly Saddam was not involved in the 911 attacks, and may not have gotten that far along the nuclear road, there is no question that both the geographic centrality of the country and the presence of a largely educated population made it a prime candidate for regime change.

Well, with that kind of thinking behind it, no wonder the war turned out as it did. Garbage in, garbage out.

Eventually the methods of the colonial era must inevitably be restored; local control on local matters, with a liberal smattering of Western bases. That part of the world is too important and too dangerous to allow it to be so badly misgoverned.

Agreed we need more governments like that in Iraq. Oh....shit.

[Gowch]

PocketRocket

==>I know for a fact there was never any

==>outright anti-Americanism in this country

==>until the Liberals started heavy immigration

==>from Islamic countries followed by vocal

==>oppositon mainly from Quebec.

You "know" nothing of the kind, although you may well

"believe" it.

Canadians' suspicion of and occasional hostility toward their American

cousins have roots that go back at least as far as 1812. Are you at all

aware that Canadians were so sickened by Americans' maintenance

of slavery when all the rest of the world had abandoned it as immoral

that they set up systems to help runaway slaves achieve their freedom?

Apparently, you are too young (or ignorant of Canadian history)

to recall the upwelling of resentment in this country when the U.S.

compelled then-prime minister John Diefenbaker (a Conservative) to kill

Canada's Avro Arrow fighter plane project, because the U.S. didn't want

to compete with it as it sold its (inferior) F-series fighters to its Cold War allies

worldwide.

Apparently, you are too young (or ignorant of Canadian history) to

remember Canadians' disgust and horror at America's attempt to

re-colonize Vietnam, and the brutality with which that attempt was

characterized.

You also don't seem to know squat about how Canadians have been

repelled by U.S. actions, over decades, to crush independent governments

in Iran, Chile, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela . . . and a host of

other places too numerous to mention.

It's true that dislike of a particular country's governmental policies

doesn't necessarily translate into a general animosity towards that

country's people as a whole. Nevertheless, Canadians' view of their

truculent southern cousins is coloured by the knowledge that

Americans always choose governments and leaders who opt for

force over reason, coercion over negotiation and the promotion of

wealth for a handful of Americans over every other consideration.

I don't really expect any of this to make sense to you, since you're

one of those whose knee-jerk reaction to all political questions is to

demonize Canada's Liberals, but I suggest you research your facts

before you embarrass yourself further.

-Ivan

[gnam]

Just a few quick points to be made here... I think your heart is probably in the right place but you begin by quoting someone, then go on to tell him/her that what they think they know is nonsense based on a few historical examples that vary in their relevance to the issue being raised. Perhaps you might want to address his/her claim that anti-americanism is directly tied to the rising number of immigrants from regions with a strong islamic demographic.

That said, your tone expresses a little too much confidence in your having exhausted the interpretations of the events you bring up as evidence for anti-americanism (or is it 'grounds' for anti-americanism... you aren't very clear about that). I don't want to spend a lot of time with this but I have a few comments and additions to what you have written.

Gowch You Quoted:

==>I know for a fact there was never any

==>outright anti-Americanism in this country

==>until the Liberals started heavy immigration

==>from Islamic countries followed by vocal

==>oppositon mainly from Quebec.

Then, Gowch, you said:

You "know" nothing of the kind, although you may well

"believe" it.

Canadians' suspicion of and occasional hostility toward their American

cousins have roots that go back at least as far as 1812.

Actually, the roots of said suspicion, on your line of reasoning, must go back much further than 1812. Probably to British/US relations circa US independance struggles. The war of 1812 was a british war, not a Canadian one... please don't use the events of that conflict as a platform from which to launch some wierd Canadian, breast-beating patriotism. It makes you sound disgustingly... ugghhh... American. Also, the events of that war have yet to be raised as a relavant issue in any recent discussion of Can/Am relations. You may be stretching this just a wee bit hmmm?

Gowch, You also pointed out:

Are you at all aware that Canadians were so sickened by Americans' maintenance

of slavery when all the rest of the world had abandoned it as immoral

that they set up systems to help runaway slaves achieve their freedom?

Canadians, in general, were not all that sickened by slavery since it continued to exist in Canada (albeit under the radar and not in the same garb as US slavery) long after the US outlawed that practice. Additionally, Canadians openly embraced trade with S. Africa for many years (post 1812) as it continued to allow slavery.

Additionally, while you are right to point out that a significant number of Canadians had a hand in helping slaves secretly move into Canada during the period of the US slave trade, this was not an officially sanctioned practice in Canada. Furthermore you neglect to mention that these actions by Canadians required significant co-operation, planning, and -gasp- friendly relations between an equally significant number of americans.

Gowch, next you mentioned Vietnam:

Apparently, you are too young (or ignorant of Canadian history) to

remember Canadians' disgust and horror at America's attempt to

re-colonize Vietnam, and the brutality with which that attempt was

characterized.

You are right... these events were disgusting. However, there were no shortage of calls from the general Canuck population for Canadian involvement in that war. Just as there are no shortage of Canadians who believe that Canada should be in Iraq.

Gowch, you also pointed to a number of other US policy initiatives:

You also don't seem to know squat about how Canadians have been

repelled by U.S. actions, over decades, to crush independent governments

in Iran, Chile, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela . . . and a host of

other places too numerous to mention.

Again, none of these actions prompted much official action on the part of the Canadian Government. Many americans felt the same way as the Canadians you mention... Stupid US policy? Yes, but then free trade came after many of these trajedies... hardly the act of an anti-USA nation.

Gowch, you concluded the following:

Nevertheless, Canadians' view of their truculent southern cousins is coloured by the knowledge that

Americans always choose governments and leaders who opt for

force over reason, coercion over negotiation and the promotion of

wealth for a handful of Americans over every other consideration.

As for the promotion of wealth for the few... tell me you don't think Canada is exempt from that criticism... you are losing credibility fast. As for you characterization of the way that americans 'always act'.... I will let that careless generalization slide a little... you're just upset. I'm sure you don't mean exactly that.

Finally, You adressed youself to the person you replied to and made the following concluding remarks Gowch:

I don't really expect any of this to make sense to you, since you're

one of those whose knee-jerk reaction to all political questions is to

demonize Canada's Liberals, but I suggest you research your facts

before you embarrass yourself further.

Hmmm... good advice Gowch. But keep in mind, research is never complete... so maybe you wanna cool it with the 'maybe you're too young or ignorant rhetoric.' Also, don't forget that there are just as many knee-jerk political reactionaries whose first impulse is to demonize Canada's conservatives. While I generally agree with the politics of those knee-jerk liberals, they are often no less thoughtless in their response to conservative politics than their conservative counterparts. This is scary... see US elections 2004.

Anyway, to wrap up, it seems that all you have done here is point to a number of blemishes on american history and try to suggest that this is where Canadian anti-americanism comes from (thankfully you stop short of suggesting that anti-americanism, whatever that is, is justified). Canada and it's people have been, and have a right to be critical of US democracy. The question you seem to skirt around is: How does that constitute Anti-Americanism? Answering this question might shed some light on the truth or untruth of what the person you quoted had to say. Instead all that has happened is that you have let yourself be dragged into some starnge game of pseudo-academic posturing and breast beating. A little bit boring to be honest... yawn... next post.

That is all.

[Gowch]

==>Just a few quick points to be made here...

==>I think your heart is probably in the right place

That's mighty nice of you, but I'd prefer

it if you didn't patronize me.

==>but you begin by quoting someone, then go on

==>to tell him/her that what they think they know is

==>nonsense based on a few historical examples that

==>vary in their relevance to the issue being raised.

==>Perhaps you might want to address his/her claim

==>that anti-americanism is directly tied to the rising

==>number of immigrants from regions with a strong

==>islamic demographic.

I did address it. I said it was bullshit, which it is.

==>That said, your tone expresses a little too much

==>confidence in your having exhausted the interpretations

==>of the events you bring up

I have no idea what this means, but I apologize for

having frightened you with my confidence.

==>as evidence for anti-americanism

==>(or is it 'grounds' for anti-americanism... you aren't very clear

==>about that).

Actually, I was quite clear about that.

Nowhere in my post was "evidence" of

anti-Americanism mentioned.

==>Then, Gowch, you said:

IG:

==>>=>You "know" nothing of the kind, although you may well

==>>=>"believe" it.

==>>=>Canadians' suspicion of and occasional hostility toward

==>>=>their American cousins have roots that go back at least

==>>=>as far as 1812.

[...]

==>The war of 1812 was a british war, not a Canadian one...

Duh.

==>please don't use the events of that conflict as a

==>platform from which to launch some wierd (sic) Canadian,

==>breast-beating patriotism.

"Breast-beating patriotism?" You detected "breast-beating

patriotism" in my post? Tell me you're joking.

==>It makes you sound disgustingly... ugghhh... American.

As it happens, I AM an American, happily living in

Canada -- which I am in a position to certify is a vastly

superior country.

==>Also, the events of that war have yet to be raised as a

==>relavant (sic) issue in any recent discussion of Can/Am relations.

==>You may be stretching this just a wee bit hmmm?

What are you talking about? I didn't touch on the

"events" of the War of 1812. I mentioned it only

as the first instance of serious conflict between

soon-to-be Canadians and Americans.

==>Gowch, You also pointed out:

IG:

==>>=>Are you at all aware that Canadians were so sickened

==>>=>by Americans' maintenance of slavery when all the rest

==>>=>of the world had abandoned it as immoral that they set

==>>=>up systems to help runaway slaves achieve their freedom?

==>Canadians, in general, were not all that sickened by slavery

==>since it continued to exist in Canada (albeit under the radar

==>and not in the same garb as US slavery) long after the US

==>outlawed that practice.

Say what? the British Parliament emancipated slaves

throughout the empire effective Aug. 1, 1834.

Slavery continued in the U.S. until the Civil War,

which ended in 1865.

Pick nits all you like, but I think I'm on safe

ground in saying the vast majority of those

living in Canada at the time did not approve

of the continuation of slavery in the U.S.

==>Additionally, Canadians openly embraced trade with

==>S. Africa for many years (post 1812) as it continued

==>to allow slavery.

Utterly irrelevant.

==>Additionally, while you are right to point out that a

==>significant number of Canadians had a hand in helping

==>slaves secretly move into Canada during the period of

==>the US slave trade, this was not an officially sanctioned

==>practice in Canada.

Again, completely irrelevant. The topic here is

Canadians' attitudes towards Americans,

not government policy.

==>Furthermore you neglect to mention that these actions by

==>Canadians required significant co-operation, planning,

==>and -gasp- friendly relations between an equally significant

==>number of americans.

Once again, utterly irrelevant to the question of

Canadians' attitude towards Americans.

==>Gowch, next you mentioned Vietnam:

IG:

==>>=>Apparently, you are too young (or ignorant of

==>>=>Canadian history) to remember Canadians' disgust and

==>>=>horror at America's attempt to re-colonize Vietnam, and

==>>=>the brutality with which that attempt was characterized.

==>You are right... these events were disgusting. However, there

==>were no shortage of calls from the general Canuck population

==>for Canadian involvement in that war.

No shortage? A tiny, irrelevant minority is more like it.

==>Just as there are no shortage of Canadians who believe that

==>Canada should be in Iraq.

Another tiny, irrelevant minority.

==>Gowch, you also pointed to a number of other US

==>policy initiatives:

IG:

==>>=>You also don't seem to know squat about how

==>>=>Canadians have been repelled by U.S. actions,

==>>=>over decades, to crush independent governments

==>>=>in Iran, Chile, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela

==>>=>. . . and a host of other places too numerous to mention.

==>Again, none of these actions prompted much official action

==>on the part of the Canadian Government.

Neither my post, nor the one to which I replied,

had anything to do with "official action on the part of

the Canadian Government." Please try to stay on

topic.

==>Many americans felt the same way as the Canadians you

==>mention ... Stupid US policy? Yes, but then free trade came

==>after many of these trajedies (sic) ... hardly the act of an anti-USA nation.

You seem to be having a difficult time staying

on topic. Trade policy has nothing whatsoever to

do with Canadians' general attitudes towards

Americans. But since you brought it up, it needs

to be pointed out that Canada-U.S. "free trade" was

established by the discredited Conservative government

of Brian Mulroney -- arguably Canada's most pro-American

prime minister until the ascension of Stephen

Harper (remember Brian's "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling"

duet with the Alzheimer's-wracked Ronald Reagan --

widely seen in Canada as an embarrassment?)

==>Gowch, you concluded the following:

IG:

==>>=>Nevertheless, Canadians' view of their truculent southern

==>>=>cousins is coloured by the knowledge that Americans

==>>=>always choose governments and leaders who opt for

==>>=>force over reason, coercion over negotiation and the

==>>=>promotion of wealth for a handful of Americans over

==>>=>every other consideration.

==>As for the promotion of wealth for the few... tell me you don't

==>think Canada is exempt from that criticism...

And this relates to the question of anti-Americanism

in Canada -- how?

==> you are losing credibility fast.

Yours, I fear, was never established in the

first place, since you can't seem to actually

address the topic that was being discussed.

==>As for you characterization of the way that americans

==>'always act'....

The phrase "always act" does not appear in

my post. Why did you place quotes around

it?

==>I will let that careless generalization slide a

==>little...

Gee, you're a charitable fellow. But in fact, there

was nothing "careless" about my observation that

Americans historically elect belligerent, aggressive

leadership, to the detriment of much of the rest

of the world -- and, often, themselves.

==>you're just upset.

Not a bit, but thanks for the patronizing aside.

==>I'm sure you don't mean exactly that.

Something else you're totally wrong about.

==>Finally, You adressed (sic) youself (sic) to the person you replied to and

==>made the following concluding remarks Gowch:

IG:

==>>=>I don't really expect any of this to make sense to you,

==>>=>since you're one of those whose knee-jerk reaction to

==>>=>all political questions is to demonize Canada's Liberals,

==>>=>but I suggest you research your facts before you

==>>=>embarrass yourself further.

==>Hmmm... good advice Gowch. But keep in mind, research is

==>never complete... so maybe you wanna cool it with the 'maybe

==>you're too young or ignorant rhetoric.' Also, don't forget that

==>there are just as many knee-jerk political reactionaries whose

==>first impulse is to demonize Canada's conservatives.

Don't be silly. "Reactionaries" are, by tradition,

if not definition, Conservatives.

==>Anyway, to wrap up, it seems that all you have done here is

==>point to a number of blemishes on american history and try to

==>suggest that this is where Canadian anti-americanism comes

==>from

I didn't "try to suggest" it. I asserted it.

==> (thankfully you stop short of suggesting that

==>anti-americanism, whatever that is, is justified).

But it IS justified. Most Canadians are aware --

viscerally, if not consciously -- that Americans

historically have behaved like thugs, barbarians

and predators on the world stage, and that it

would not take much of a crisis born of a

shortage of some crucial commodity (water, for

instance, or oil) for them to cast their greed-glazed

eyes this way. Most Canadians, I reckon, are

well aware that not ALL Americans are war-loving,

avarice-crazed Nazis, but they also know that the

American national character is twisted and the

society deeply dysfunctional, and therefore

dangerous to Canada and other peace- and

democracy-loving nations. I think I'm on safe

ground when I say that, generally, Canadians

regard Americans as one might an alcoholic

distant relative -- you love him because he's

family, but you know that down deep, where it

counts, he's an asshole.

==>Canada and it's (sic) people have been, and have a right to be

==>critical of US democracy.

The United States is not a democracy by any stretch

of the imagination. It is an oligarchy.

==>The question you seem to skirt around is: How

==>does that constitute Anti-Americanism?

I "skirted" nothing. I addressed it rather

clearly. Sorry you don't get it.

==>Answering this

==>question might shed some light on the truth or untruth of what

==>the person you quoted had to say. Instead all that has happened

==>is that you have let yourself be dragged into some starnge (sic) game

==>of pseudo-academic posturing and breast beating.

Your comment might have had more weight

if you appeared to have even the slightest

inkling of what I was talking about.

==>A little bit

==>boring to be honest...

Sorry I bored you. But thanks for amusing me.

-IG

[gnam]

[ Sorry I bored you. But thanks for amusing me.

-IG

My pleasure.

[Charles Anthony]

Try to use the mark up QUOTE feature when you post. It is easier to understand your writing. Before pressing "Add Reply" you should press "Preview Post" and see the display of your post before it goes online.

Also, try to minimize carriage return or typing {ENTER} at the end of your lines. Everybody has different default margins on their own computers. Use the {ENTER} only to separate paragraphs to make it uniform across all computers.

[gnam]

Try to use the mark up QUOTE feature when you post. It is easier to understand your writing. Before pressing "Add Reply" you should press "Preview Post" and see the display of your post before it goes online.

Also, try to minimize carriage return or typing {ENTER} at the end of your lines. Everybody has different default margins on their own computers. Use the {ENTER} only to separate paragraphs to make it uniform across all computers.

Sure,

Sorry about that... still trying to figure out how to use the site properly but I think I have now.

[Charles Anthony]

I do not know who I am quoting here:

Apparently, you are too young (or ignorant of Canadian history) to recall the upwelling of resentment in this country when the U.S. compelled then-prime minister John Diefenbaker (a Conservative) to kill Canada's Avro Arrow fighter plane project, because the U.S. didn't want to compete with it as it sold its (inferior) F-series fighters to its Cold War allies worldwide.

How did the the U.S. compel Diefenbaker? I can not find convincing evidence that it was compulsion as opposed to just a business deal. It looks like Canadians were screwed over by their own government.

[jbg]

I do not know who I am quoting here:

Apparently, you are too young (or ignorant of Canadian history) to recall the upwelling of resentment in this country when the U.S. compelled then-prime minister John Diefenbaker (a Conservative) to kill Canada's Avro Arrow fighter plane project, because the U.S. didn't want to compete with it as it sold its (inferior) F-series fighters to its Cold War allies worldwide.

How did the the U.S. compel Diefenbaker? I can not find convincing evidence that it was compulsion as opposed to just a business deal. It looks like Canadians were screwed over by their own government.

I am an American who thinks we should have bought the Avro. The problem may well have been that without American purchasing power the project didn't have a large enough market to justify the cost.

[Gowch]

I do not know who I am quoting here:

Apparently, you are too young (or ignorant of Canadian history) to recall the upwelling of resentment in this country when the U.S. compelled then-prime minister John Diefenbaker (a Conservative) to kill Canada's Avro Arrow fighter plane project, because the U.S. didn't want to compete with it as it sold its (inferior) F-series fighters to its Cold War allies worldwide.

How did the the U.S. compel Diefenbaker? I can not find convincing evidence that it was compulsion as opposed to just a business deal. It looks like Canadians were screwed over by their own government.

I am an Americasn who thinks we should have bought the Avro. The problem may well have been that without American purchasing power the project didn't have a large enough market to justify the cost.

"The Americans were kept posted on the progress of the Arrow. A brochure on the Arrow design and performance put out by Avro in 1954 has the notation, "This brochure has been specially prepared for the Canadian and United States Governments and their attendant Services."(35) Some critical testing was also carried out at American facilities. It can be safely assumed that the Americans were well aware of the success of the program.

"U.S. support changed with the introduction of the SAGE - Bomarc defensive weapon system in the mid fifties. Canada's active participation was necessary for the success of this system. Considerable pressure was put on the Canadian Government and the end product of this pressure is indicated in a recently declassified memorandum from the U.S. Secretary of Defence dated June 1, 1960.(36)

"'Prior to the NSC (National Security Council) paper (December 1958) and following a visit of the President to Canada in July 1958, Canada took the following actions with the understanding that her defence industry depended upon the U.S. channeling defence business into Canada: cancelled the CF 105 (the Arrow) and related systems contracts; decided to make maximum use of U.S. developed weapons, integrated into NORAD; worked with the U.S. toward a fully integrated continental defence'".

[http://www.dewit.ca/archs/avro_shaw/index.html]

[US Citizen]

Just jumping in quickly to say you will hate us when the North American Union takes effect. You will have a HUGE amount of "people formerly known as Americans" heading North to get away from the filth the ILLEGAL (they tend to leave that very important word out in our mainstream media) immigrants have made of our border states. You think I am kidding? You have no idea of what is going on down here. The ILLEGALS are calling for us to vacate the continent and head on back to Europe.

Check out this link...it is just one of many...if anyone is interested, PM or email me. It is late and I am off to bed, but this is just the latest outrage...NOT covered by mainstream media, but thanks to the internet, we still manage...

http://oneoldvet.com/?p=158

http://oneoldvet.com/?p=162

Get ready...things are getting ugly down here...

Thanks for your time!

[Wilber]

I am an Americasn who thinks we should have bought the Avro. The problem may well have been that without American purchasing power the project didn't have a large enough market to justify the cost.

This is pretty much the case. The Arrow was by far the most expensive defense project in Canadian history and would have needed a large export market to come anywhere near breaking even. It's a shame but the government of the time decided Bomarc's and F101's equipped with nukes were a more cost effective way to go when it came to defending against manned bombers, which after all, was what it was all about at the time.

[M.Dancer]

The advent of the ICBM made the Arrow obsolete even before it was made. The relevant item here is that the arrow was an interceptor. It wasn't a bomber or a fighter. It's sole raison d'etre was going verry very fast in a straight line, fire nuclear anti aircraft missiles at soviet bomber formations and hopefully not incinerate itself. Once the ICBM appeared, the Arrow's mission ended. Had it been designed as a multi purpose platform, like the F-111 series.....they may have survived or at least been marketable.

[Wilber]

Say what? the British Parliament emancipated slaves

throughout the empire effective Aug. 1, 1834.

Slavery continued in the U.S. until the Civil War,

which ended in 1865.

Pick nits all you like, but I think I'm on safe

ground in saying the vast majority of those

living in Canada at the time did not approve

of the continuation of slavery in the U.S.

I don't think it would be unsafe to say that a majority of Americans were opposed to slavery prior to the civil war. All those slaves Canadians helped didn't make it from the slave States to the border without help from Americans. You did fight the most costly war in your history over the issue didn't you?

The war of 1812 was a british war, not a Canadian one...

Duh.

It was a war between the US and a colonial power brought on by the stupidity of the British when it came to respecting the neutrality of the US, combined with a desire of some in the US to use the Brits preoccupation with Napoleon to absorb the whole continent. Today it has far less importance than the next Olympic hockey game between the US and Canada when it comes to anti Americanism.

You seem to be having a difficult time staying

on topic. Trade policy has nothing whatsoever to

do with Canadians' general attitudes towards

Americans. But since you brought it up, it needs

to be pointed out that Canada-U.S. "free trade" was

established by the discredited Conservative government

of Brian Mulroney -- arguably Canada's most pro-American

prime minister until the ascension of Stephen

Harper (remember Brian's "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling"

duet with the Alzheimer's-wracked Ronald Reagan --

widely seen in Canada as an embarrassment?)

Certainly there have been Canadian's adversely effected by the free trade agreement but by and large, Canada has done rather well from it. It exports far more services, manufactured and high tech goods to the US than it ever has. I know of several local companies which have over 90% of their market in the US.

But it IS justified. Most Canadians are aware --

viscerally, if not consciously -- that Americans

historically have behaved like thugs, barbarians

and predators on the world stage, and that it

would not take much of a crisis born of a

shortage of some crucial commodity (water, for

instance, or oil) for them to cast their greed-glazed

eyes this way. Most Canadians, I reckon, are

well aware that not ALL Americans are war-loving,

avarice-crazed Nazis, but they also know that the

American national character is twisted and the

society deeply dysfunctional, and therefore

dangerous to Canada and other peace- and

democracy-loving nations. I think I'm on safe

ground when I say that, generally, Canadians

regard Americans as one might an alcoholic

distant relative -- you love him because he's

family, but you know that down deep, where it

counts, he's an asshole.

It's true the US has made some big blunders when it comes to foreign policy but it is hard to criticize them for acting in their own interests. Every one else does, they just have more means to do it therefore it follows that their mistakes will be larger. I wonder how much peace and democracy there would be in the world it the US had never existed. Sure you can point to Central America, the Middle East and Viet Nam when comes to what was bad or misguided but you can also point to the fact the US was largely responsible for the democracy's victory WWII and footed most of the bill for rebuilding a defeated Germany and Japan after that war. You can point to the US for defending a free Western Europe during the cold war and eventually forcing an end to that war. You can also point to the fact the Republic of Korea would not exist if it hadn't been for American blood and money.

At times he may be a jerk and not too bright, but in no way an asshole. Let's face it, we all fit that description at times.

[JerrySeinfeld]

What a pointless poll.

Take a look around.

When France says this century will be the "Chinese Century" what they really mean is "Oh please god not another American century"

We have an entire group of Europtrash and Canadians who would see Iran develope a nuclear bomb just to SPITE the Americans.

Thats a sick festering hatred which would never be bold-faced admitted in a poll like this.

To admit that would be to reveal the true motivation behind such bizzare tolerance of Armegeddon-lovers like hmedinejad.

[jbg]

What a pointless poll.

Take a look around.

When France says this century will be the "Chinese Century" what they really mean is "Oh please god not another American century"

We have an entire group of Europtrash and Canadians who would see Iran develope a nuclear bomb just to SPITE the Americans.

Thats a sick festering hatred which would never be bold-faced admitted in a poll like this.

Great observation. One can understand the feeling of the Eurotrash though. They spent approximately 1000 years, leading up to 1945, fighting over who would rule Europe, and thus the world. Meanwhile, the best and brightest of Europeans either left of their own accord or were driven out to make the US, Canada and Australia better places to live than cramped, creaking, antiquated Europe.

The US, economically and politically, was barely a footnote in world consciousness prior to August 1914. Then, Europe's self-immolation went into full throttle, and Europe just cannot live with the reality that no one cares about Europe any more.

[yam]

Vallium anybody?

[kimmy]

Vallium anybody?

You might think that your "Vallium anybody?" routine will make people see you as a tremendous wit; you're actually only half right.

The advent of the ICBM made the Arrow obsolete even before it was made. The relevant item here is that the arrow was an interceptor. It wasn't a bomber or a fighter. It's sole raison d'etre was going verry very fast in a straight line, fire nuclear anti aircraft missiles at soviet bomber formations and hopefully not incinerate itself. Once the ICBM appeared, the Arrow's mission ended. Had it been designed as a multi purpose platform, like the F-111 series.....they may have survived or at least been marketable.

This is the key point, and something the Arrow boosters just don't seem to grasp. The US cancelled its Mach 3 interceptor project (and Mach 3 bomber) at the same time, for the same reason: the arrival of the rocket age meant that strategic bombers, and the ability to intercept them, had become obsolete.

-k