Should Canada Bend Over/Stand Up to America?

[August1991]

How should Canada deal with "The States"?

Here's one view:

As far as "they need us nearly as much", right, sure, okay. Like my employer needs me nearly as much as I need my job - not. Take a look at what percentage of our trade exports, hell, of our manufactured goods are shipped to the United States. Now take a look at how much of their goods are shipped here. Believe me, they can do without us a helluva lot easier than we can do without them.

As far as 'grovelling" goes, if you regard not going out of his way to spit in Bush's face as grovelling, then i guess that his behaviour so far does qualify. But twisting the meaning of the word that far renders the accusation into the territory of eye-rolling silliness hardly worthy of discussion.

Here's another view:

You dont even have to read between the lines to know that the US is taking over Canada's security, transportation and defense. US wont declare "open warfare" on Canada, its doesnt have to, we will just sit on our collective butts and let it happen, we wont even notice it HAS happened until the Canadian flags come down and the American flags go up ............ Our rail carriers seem to have US flags painted on the sides of their box cars now ....

In one view, we are prostitutes who can negotiate a better deal. In another view, we are prostitutes who must get out of the business. In either case, we are prostitutes.

Maybe this is what bothers me so much about English-Canadian discussions about the US. In either case, the perception is that the US is big and strong and Canada is weak and irrelevant. So, Canada either accepts its status or quixotically yells "No!"

Trudeau's elephant/mouse metaphor worked well in English-Canada and that's why I suspect he used it. So unfortunate.

----

I can understand why Argus, a civil servant, views his employer as all powerful. And Kindred, who sees life in geopolitical terms, views the US government as all powerful.

But I don't see US-Canadian relations this way. The Big US does not deal with Little Canada. Rather, ordinary Americans deal with ordinary Canadians.

Yesterday in Old Montreal, I gave map directions to tourists. They were from San Francisco. Our countries are such that anonymous relationships are personal but easy. Unlike the Soviet Union, Mao's China or North Korea, we don't deal with delegations. A Canadian deals with an American.

Small Canada Inc doesn't fight Giant USA Inc for continental market share. 'Canada' doesn't seek a market niche, or go abroad to diversify. North America is not a duopoly with a dominant firm and a follower firm. Rather, millions of individuals deal with one another in a large continental market. John Lennon could only imagine.

Northern North America is an open market with 330 million people making various deals every day. Ordinary Canadians and Americans have choices. If you don't like one American, there's another American who's different. Surely Canadians know this. All three "progressive" Canadian forums have "progressive" American posters. North Americans are free to choose.

Argus, imagine a town where you had ten potential employers. And Kindred, imagine a country where the government leader will not be leader in two years and everyone knows that.

[Charles Anthony]

But I don't see US-Canadian relations this way. The Big US does not deal with Little Canada. Rather, ordinary Americans deal with ordinary Canadians.

It is these "small governments" of individual people that actually make a concrete difference -- provided the market is free from government interventions.

I do not fear any American take-over because I do not EVER hear individual Americans expressing that desire.

[Argus]

del

[Argus]

How should Canada deal with "The States"?

Here's one view:

As far as "they need us nearly as much", right, sure, okay. Like my employer needs me nearly as much as I need my job - not. Take a look at what percentage of our trade exports, hell, of our manufactured goods are shipped to the United States. Now take a look at how much of their goods are shipped here. Believe me, they can do without us a helluva lot easier than we can do without them.

As far as 'grovelling" goes, if you regard not going out of his way to spit in Bush's face as grovelling, then i guess that his behaviour so far does qualify. But twisting the meaning of the word that far renders the accusation into the territory of eye-rolling silliness hardly worthy of discussion.

Here's another view:

You dont even have to read between the lines to know that the US is taking over Canada's security, transportation and defense. US wont declare "open warfare" on Canada, its doesnt have to, we will just sit on our collective butts and let it happen, we wont even notice it HAS happened until the Canadian flags come down and the American flags go up ............ Our rail carriers seem to have US flags painted on the sides of their box cars now ....

In one view, we are prostitutes who can negotiate a better deal. In another view, we are prostitutes who must get out of the business. In either case, we are prostitutes.

August, to interpret my words above as "prostitution" is absurd.

I was responding to a specific statement, not describing my view of our relationship with the US. We have a multi-facetted relationship with the Americans which benefits both sides.

Maybe this is what bothers me so much about English-Canadian discussions about the US. In either case, the perception is that the US is big and strong and Canada is weak and irrelevant. So, Canada either accepts its status or quixotically yells "No!"

Trudeau's elephant/mouse metaphor worked well in English-Canada and that's why I suspect he used it. So unfortunate.

Yes, you French are so much more sophisticated and enlightened than us August.

In point of fact, nobody tries to use metaphors to describe our international relationships to Quebec because as far as Quebec is concerned the world ends just beyond its borders. The rest of the world consists of the wallet they have in Ottawa, and a holiday camp in Florida. French Quebecers are among the world's most insular and provincial of peoples, with little care or concern as to what goes on beyond their borders.

But I don't see US-Canadian relations this way. The Big US does not deal with Little Canada. Rather, ordinary Americans deal with ordinary Canadians.

Your understanding of the US is about as insightful as your understanding of English Canada.

In fact, Big US does indeed have a huge influence over LIttle Canada in terms of our trade rules and relationships, among other things. Simply putting in a requirement that everyone crossing the US border from Canada have a passport, for example, is going to be devestating to the tourism industry here. That will be far worse than softwood or the mad cow restrictions. And it is through dealing with "Big US" that we will hopefully get that rule removed before it takes affect.

And yes, ordinary Americans do deal with ordinary Canadians. As in ordinary Americans who were refusing to buy Canadian goods after watching the Liberals cheap political stunts of insulting Americans. We even had some warehouse workers refusing to unload a truck from Canada. To think that insulting the US government does not make ordinary Americans angry at Canada is simply ignorant. But the Liberal elites, especially the more arrogant ones from Toronto and Quebec, like to assume that at heart the American people hate George Bush and his administration as much as they do. They're wrong.

Small Canada Inc doesn't fight Giant USA Inc for continental market share.

Don't think so, eh? What do you think softwood was all about? It was about American lumber producers lobbying their politicians to defend them against Canadian producers who were, in their opinion, taking too much market share. There are similar lobbying efforts going on all the time with regard to this or that industry, which Canada has to deal with in turn.

I think your views here are cliched. They seem to reflect the extreme left belief that if you're not "standing up" to the Americans, in the form of constantly insulting them for no reason, then your alternative is to give in to them and "bend over" or "prostitute" ourselves. Would it surprise you to learn the world is a little more nuanced than this?

Do you have any friends, August? Do you confine the relationship with your friends to either being a submissive and "bending over", or getting in their face and insulting them at every opportunity?

[Leafless]

How should Canada deal with "The States"?

This is a really nonsensical question.

Actually we are related by blood more to the U.S. than we are Quebec and even (freely) share the U.S. culture and language.

The U.S has provided Canada the tools to be a modern vibrant society by sharing it's vast multitude of resources with us and by allowing us to be one of it's major trading partners.

If you are dissatisfied with the U.S. maybe we should break off all relations with the U.S., remove all U.S. investment in Canada and seek out with other parts of the world to seek whatever relations you consider would be more superior or where Canada would fully call the shots according to your intellect or requirements.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

OUr problems with the US are simply that we are spineless, something they just don't respect at all. If you want to "deal" with the USA then tear up NAFTA. That will get their attention quickly. Once you have their attention you damned well better be prepared to "deal" with them.

The thing of it is that we leave ourselves relatively devoid of manufacturing and rely on the exportation of raw material to them and everyone else then we import the value added products and feed their economy. If you want to improve our economic position you need only focus on creating small cottage industry consisting of manufctured goods and promote the hell out of them with tax breaks and buy "Canadian" campaigns. The little companies will grow up in an internal market structure and using that foundation they can then expand into larger export related markets. The thing is you need a solid internal market first in order for this to work.

Canada can do this and earn the respect of the US, or it can sit back and watch corporate governance take root and this country will cease to exist within a few decades.

[jdobbin]

How should Canada deal with "The States"?

This is a really nonsensical question.

Actually we are related by blood more to the U.S. than we are Quebec and even (freely) share the U.S. culture and language.

The U.S has provided Canada the tools to be a modern vibrant society by sharing it's vast multitude of resources with us and by allowing us to be one of it's major trading partners.

If you are dissatisfied with the U.S. maybe we should break off all relations with the U.S., remove all U.S. investment in Canada and seek out with other parts of the world to seek whatever relations you consider would be more superior or where Canada would fully call the shots according to your intellect or requirements.

If it is nonsensical to you, why bother answering it? It's a legitimate question that can have a variety of answers.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The question is actually relevant within our country at this point in time. Our country is being dominated in both an economic and cultural sense by our American brothers. They are very successful and we try to emulate that success here. The real issue here is how to retain our national identity in light of this.

[Leafless]

If it is nonsensical to you, why bother answering it? It's a legitimate question that can have a variety of answers.

Is this your answer to the post?

Or are you trying to be antagonistic like you are with Argus?

Stephen Harper has went to a lot of trouble to correct feelings of anti-Americanism initiated by the previous Liberal government.

It is nonsensical to think someone would generate a post at this time to possibly reignite feelings of anti-Americanism with a country that is Canada's friend, neighbor and lifeblood.

[jdobbin]

Is this your answer to the post?

Or are you trying to be antagonistic like you are with Argus?

Stephen Harper has went to a lot of trouble to correct feelings of anti-Americanism initiated by the previous Liberal government.

It is nonsensical to think someone would generate a post at this time to possibly reignite feelings of anti-Americanism with a country that is Canada's friend, neighbor and lifeblood.

You use words like non-sensical and then attempt to answer the question. Does that make sense? The debate happens every day whether Canada is a friend or not to the United States. There are many ways to approach Canada/U.S. relations. You can take note that Harper is not using Mulroney's or Chretien's approach to the relationship. It remains to be seen whether the one he is taking now is the one that works.

So, the question will remain legitimate.

As far as antgonistic, I haven't personally said anything about you here. I questioned why you would call a legitimate discussion non-sensical. You call it anti-Amercian. The debate could have gone in any number of directions before you dismissed it.

[Leafless]

You use words like non-sensical and then attempt to answer the question. Does that make sense? The debate happens every day whether Canada is a friend or not to the United States. There are many ways to approach Canada/U.S. relations. You can take note that Harper is not using Mulroney's or Chretien's approach to the relationship. It remains to be seen whether the one he is taking now is the one that works.

So, the question will remain legitimate.

As far as antagonistic, I haven't personally said anything about you here. I questioned why you would call a legitimate discussion nonsensical. You call it anti-American. The debate could have gone in any number of directions before you dismissed it.

"How should Canada deal with "The States" is nonsensical because Canada can't deal with the "States" in a way to unfairly make them bend without repercussions of one sort or another.

Canada is fortunate to have a trade deal with the U.S. period.

I have seen posts like this before on this site and elsewhere disintegrate into anti-Americanism and is basically inviting anti-Americanism.

My reply to the author of this post did not include substance relating to the question asked but suggested caution concerning the question asked as Mr. Harper is in the process of returning Canada-U.S relations back to normal.

And I would suggest Mr. Harper is NOT using any particular style as you suggest but is a PM that is finally acting in a normal manner towards our friend and ally the U.S.

BTW, You can be antagonistic without saying anything personal about someone.

In this case you were critical or opposed my personal response in which I used the word "nonsensical" which was not related to you or subject matter but simply part of my personal response against a post of this type.

That is definition of antagonism.

[August1991]

August, to interpret my words above as "prostitution" is absurd. I was responding to a specific statement, not describing my view of our relationship with the US. We have a multi-facetted relationship with the Americans which benefits both sides.

Multifaceted is a more accurate portrayal but that still implies the idea that the US is one person and Canada is another person and our relationship is complex.

Yes, you French are so much more sophisticated and enlightened than us August. In point of fact, nobody tries to use metaphors to describe our international relationships to Quebec because as far as Quebec is concerned the world ends just beyond its borders. The rest of the world consists of the wallet they have in Ottawa, and a holiday camp in Floriday. French Quebecers are among the world's most insular and provincial of peoples, with little care or concern as to what goes on beyond their borders.

I'll ignore that viewpoint here and leave it for another thread.

Your understanding of the US is about as insightful as your understanding of English Canada. In fact, Big US does indeed have a huge influence over LIttle Canada in terms of our trade rules and relationships, among other things. Simply putting in a requirement that everyone crossing the US border from Canada have a passport, for example, is going to be devestating to the tourism industry here.

And it is just as devastating for the millions of Americans who won't come to Canada. As many Americans cross the border as Canadians who do.

Argus, you are one individual on a continent with 330 million. An American in upper New York State is also one individual on this continent. On this continent, relationships exist between individuals, not between countries.

And yes, ordinary Americans do deal with ordinary Canadians. As in ordinary Americans who were refusing to buy Canadian goods after watching the Liberals cheap political stunts of insulting Americans. We even had some warehouse workers refusing to unload a truck from Canada.

Your examples are weak and irrelevant. When I see a successful voluntary boycott of maple syrup or Californian wine, I'll take notice. Until then, I feel safe in believing the mundane has no nationality.

Small Canada Inc doesn't fight Giant USA Inc for continental market share.

Don't think so, eh? What do you think softwood was all about? It was about American lumber producers lobbying their politicians to defend them against Canadian producers who were, in their opinion, taking too much market share. There are similar lobbying efforts going on all the time with regard to this or that industry, which Canada has to deal with in turn.

I can't think of a better example. Softwood lumber producers on both sides of the border ganged up together to screw consumers on both sides of the border.

I will grant you that an arbitrary line divides people on the continent and our two governments have access to control of that line. It is like control of access to a bridge. Some business interests on both sides use this control to their advantage.

I think your views here are cliched. They seem to reflect the extreme left belief that if you're not "standing up" to the Americans, in the form of constantly insulting them for no reason, then your alternative is to give in to them and "bend over" or "prostitute" ourselves. Would it surprise you to learn the world is a little more nuanced than this?

Do you have any friends, August? Do you confine the relationship with your friends to either being a submissive and "bending over", or getting in their face and insulting them at every opportunity?

I don't confine my view of relations to these two extremes. So, you'll understand my surprise that almost all English-Canadians personalize Canada and the US and then assume the relationship is between unequals.

For example Argus, you seem to argue often that we are nothing compared to the US and we would be wise to admit the truth and get the best deal possible. I called that being a mercenary prostitute although realpolitik might be a kinder description.

On the other side, usually Leftist, others argue that we must not be afraid to stand up to the US bullies while cultivating other foreign relationships. I called that being a battered prostitute although idealpolitik might be a more sympathetic term.

In either case, English-Canadians view their relationship with the US as being the little guy faced with the Big Guy. When Harper sits down with Bush, it may be apt for him to think in these terms - particularly when it comes to military power.

But this is an entirely false perception of the relationships between millions of people on this continent. When Argus sits down with the guy from Upstate New York, well, it's just two guys. The relationship between Canada and the US is composed of millions of such relationships between Canadians and Americans and in each of those relationships, it's just two guys.

----

Here you go, Argus. This is an example of an English-Canadian who believes that small Canada is a supplicant to the Big US and we should accept this inevitable situation (getting the best we can from it):

"How should Canada deal with "The States" is nonsensical because Canada can't deal with the "States" in a way to unfairly make them bend without repercussions of one sort or another.

Canada is fortunate to have a trade deal with the U.S. period.

Leafless, when you to the US, is there one, rich Big Guy who owns the joint and decides everything while you're down there - or do you deal one-on-one with people who own no more than you?

I'll go with the latter and add that neither you nor each American you meet has the upper hand. Neither you nor the American can dictate terms.

And here Argus, you've got the other English-Canadian perception. The Big US dominates Small Canada and we should have the courage to stand up for ourselves. Thene they'll respect us!

OUr problems with the US are simply that we are spineless, something they just don't respect at all. If you want to "deal" with the USA then tear up NAFTA. That will get their attention quickly. Once you have their attention you damned well better be prepared to "deal" with them....

Canada can do this and earn the respect of the US, or it can sit back and watch corporate governance take root and this country will cease to exist within a few decades.

Jerry, when you go to the US, is there One Big Bully down there who taunts you? Or do you meet individuals who are just as much "one person in this crazy world" as you are?

[jbg]

There is no way that Canada can "stand up" to the most powerful nation in the world. Fortunately, the US is a better neighbor for Canada than the USSR was for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, or less severely Poland, Czecholoslovaki, Hungary, et. al.

[Argus]

OUr problems with the US are simply that we are spineless, something they just don't respect at all. If you want to "deal" with the USA then tear up NAFTA. That will get their attention quickly.

Or we could just set the place on fire. That would get their attention too, and be even more dramatic.

The thing of it is that we leave ourselves relatively devoid of manufacturing and rely on the exportation of raw material to them and everyone else then we import the value added products and feed their economy.

The simple fact is that manufacturing is generally much, much cheaper in China and the like. As to what remains of our manufacturing base, almost all of it exported to the US.

If you want to improve our economic position you need only focus on creating small cottage industry consisting of manufctured goods and promote the hell out of them with tax breaks and buy "Canadian" campaigns.

Uhm, sure. Love the business plan. You build and promote your $25 Canadian toaster while the Chinese are selling theirs for $11 at Zellers and Wal-Mart. Good luck to you.

[Argus]

Do you have any friends, August? Do you confine the relationship with your friends to either being a submissive and "bending over", or getting in their face and insulting them at every opportunity?

I don't confine my view of relations to these two extremes. So, you'll understand my surprise that almost all English-Canadians personalize Canada and the US and then assume the relationship is between unequals.

Not entirely true. Most discussions about the US involve trade relationships, or some kind of geopolitical military deal or treaty. On either of those subjects it's certainly true that the US is vastly richer, larger and more powerful than Canada. So yes, relations between the two countries are going to be between unequals in those terms.

For example Argus, you seem to argue often that we are nothing compared to the US and we would be wise to admit the truth and get the best deal possible.

Not true. However, again, when talking about trade, we have to recognize that buyers are in the drivers seats, while sellers have to aim to please. Our trade surplus with the US is simply enormous, and powers our economy. That makes us the sellers, and them the buyers. You don't tick off your buyers unneccessarily. They can easily replace just about anything we want to sell. We cannot replace them as buyers. Same goes for security. We contribute almost nothing. It is the American miltiary which protects us. From what? From the unforeseen, which others nations are forced to pay a lot of money to protect themselves from, but which we've more or less escaped over the last generation. In both cases, the reality is the US has the power, not us. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't support standing up to them given the right circumstances. But most of the opposition to the US has been pointless, and done to score cheap political points. Opposition to the US missilve shield, for example. I don't think much of its value myself. But hey, why not please them and go along with them? It costs us nothing. It won't hurt.

On the other side, usually Leftist, others argue that we must not be afraid to stand up to the US bullies while cultivating other foreign relationships.

What other relationships? With the communist Chinese? Who, in the world, should we form other relationships who acts in a way more politically acceptable to the leftists? In fact, most of the opposition the Left has to the US is simply because they ARE the US. The Left doesn't get worked up about similar types of behaviour from other nations.

Stand up to the US? Sure. When it's important, and when we have something to gain, and a good chance of gaining it. But you can hear these people now on the Israeli issue. We should pound the pedestal and make it known how much we dissaprove of the US and Israel!

And what, exactly does that gain us? Nothing. And what purpose, exactly does it serve? None. But the Left is adamant! Pure silliness born out of suspicion, envy, and ideological stupidity. They'd be happy if we told off the Americans over this issue, no matter how much it irritated them, no matter what they might do. To them, that would be "standing up" to the American bully. But it amounts to pissing off your best customer to no purpose. So even if I didn't side with the Americans and Israel on this I'd regard that as pure stupidity. Call that bending over if you like.

[jdobbin]

"How should Canada deal with "The States" is nonsensical because Canada can't deal with the "States" in a way to unfairly make them bend without repercussions of one sort or another.

Canada is fortunate to have a trade deal with the U.S. period.

I have seen posts like this before on this site and elsewhere disintegrate into anti-Americanism and is basically inviting anti-Americanism.

My reply to the author of this post did not include substance relating to the question asked but suggested caution concerning the question asked as Mr. Harper is in the process of returning Canada-U.S relations back to normal.

And I would suggest Mr. Harper is NOT using any particular style as you suggest but is a PM that is finally acting in a normal manner towards our friend and ally the U.S.

BTW, You can be antagonistic without saying anything personal about someone.

In this case you were critical or opposed my personal response in which I used the word "nonsensical" which was not related to you or subject matter but simply part of my personal response against a post of this type.

That is definition of antagonism.

I apologize for that then. I thought your non-sensical remark was antagonistic to the subject matter. You have since clairfied your reponse.

I still think it is too early to tell what Harper's style in the relationship is. I do think he cautiously trying not to do Mulroney's style. For example, he didn't sing Happy Birthday, Mr. President with everyone else at the news conference. That would have been embarrassing! Can you imagine the cartoons back in Canada with Harper hopping out of a cake ala Marilyn Monroe? Eek!

Mulroney did have Reagan and Bush's implicit trust and a lot of legislation was written in favour of Canada because that relationship. We didn't win everything back then and a lot of it was controversial but it was a significant change from years past. Mulroney might have had the popularity to continue as a prime minister even longer if it wasn't for the incredibly bruising constitutional battles.

I think Harper will have to increasing have to stand up to Congress even if he has a reasonable and respectable realtionship with Bush. There are too many yahoos there who still think we let September 11 terrorists into their country. There is no way to be polite about responding to that. That answer is, "You are incorrect. They didn't come from Canada. None of them. Zero. So take it back."

[jbg]

There are too many yahoos there who still think we let Septemeber 11 terrorists into their country.

Just as I thought, until last night, that Saskatchewan overhunted its seal population.

[gc1765]

How should Canada deal with "The States"?

Canada needs to do what is best for Canada, period. No appeasing the U.S. in the hopes that they will return the favour, they won't. We helped them in Afghanistan, what did we get in return? More tariffs on softwood lumber. The British helped out the U.S. in Iraq, what did the British get in return? Nothing.

NAFTA benefits both Canada and the U.S., so I wouldn't suggest getting rid of it, but we should try to ensure that we are getting a fair deal.

[jbg]

How should Canada deal with "The States"?

The British helped out the U.S. in Iraq, what did the British get in return? Nothing.

Excuse me. We bailed their sweet arses out in, oh, WW I and II.

[gc1765]

How should Canada deal with "The States"?

The British helped out the U.S. in Iraq, what did the British get in return? Nothing.

Excuse me. We bailed their sweet arses out in, oh, WW I and II.

That was a long time ago. I guess I should have asked: what has bush done for the British? Nothing.

By the way, you guys showed up a bit late in both cases. Canada was there for the long haul

[August1991]

Everyone seems to have thoroughly misunderstood my opening post. I'll use gc to try and set things straight.

Canada needs to do what is best for Canada, period. No appeasing the U.S. in the hopes that they will return the favour, they won't.

gc, every day, millions of Canadians have dealings with millions of Americans. I would hope that each of those Canadians does what is in their own best interest, and I suspect each American does the same.

When you use the term "Canada", gc, are you aware of the complexity of the word?

I say all this because it is impossible to understand the relationship between the two countries except as literally millions of relationships between individuals. In this sense, it is nonsensical to talk about who dominates whom.

----

You generally miss my point Argus but this idea (although wrong) comes closest to getting it:

However, again, when talking about trade, we have to recognize that buyers are in the drivers seats, while sellers have to aim to please. Our trade surplus with the US is simply enormous, and powers our economy. That makes us the sellers, and them the buyers. You don't tick off your buyers unneccessarily. They can easily replace just about anything we want to sell. We cannot replace them as buyers.

Neither buyers nor sellers are by that fact alone in the driver's seat. Each transaction is different and each market is different.

In some cases, a Canadian calls the shots and in other cases, an American calls the shots. And in still other cases, neither calls any shots. You deal with the outside world as an individual - and an American does exactly the same.

[gc1765]

Everyone seems to have thoroughly misunderstood my opening post. I'll use gc to try and set things straight.

Canada needs to do what is best for Canada, period. No appeasing the U.S. in the hopes that they will return the favour, they won't.

gc, every day, millions of Canadians have dealings with millions of Americans. I would hope that each of those Canadians does what is in their own best interest, and I suspect each American does the same.

When you use the term "Canada", gc, are you aware of the complexity of the word?

I say all this because it is impossible to understand the relationship between the two countries except as literally millions of relationships between individuals. In this sense, it is nonsensical to talk about who dominates whom.

When I use the term "Canada", I am talking specifically about the Canadian government. I thought my reference to NAFTA & Afghanistan would have made that obvious.

[jbg]

Everyone seems to have thoroughly misunderstood my opening post. I'll use gc to try and set things straight.

Canada needs to do what is best for Canada, period. No appeasing the U.S. in the hopes that they will return the favour, they won't.

gc, every day, millions of Canadians have dealings with millions of Americans. I would hope that each of those Canadians does what is in their own best interest, and I suspect each American does the same.

When you use the term "Canada", gc, are you aware of the complexity of the word?

I say all this because it is impossible to understand the relationship between the two countries except as literally millions of relationships between individuals. In this sense, it is nonsensical to talk about who dominates whom.

When I use the term "Canada", I am talking specifically about the Canadian government. I thought my reference to NAFTA & Afghanistan would have made that obvious.

The one thing that stands out about our relations is that unlike the way things unfolded in Europe between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the onset of Pax Americana after 1945, we haven't fought militarily. The differences tend to be irritants, not casus belli. I firmly believe that is one of the reasons for our greater collective prosperity.

Now, the fact that we largely speak a common language does help that process. It is hard to fight one's siblings.

[gc1765]

The one thing that stands out about our relations is that unlike the way things unfolded in Europe between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the onset of Pax Americana after 1945, we haven't fought militarily. The differences tend to be irritants, not casus belli. I firmly believe that is one of the reasons for our greater collective prosperity.

Now, the fact that we largely speak a common language does help that process. It is hard to fight one's siblings.

True, both of our countries can be happy that our differences have not been so large as to create a military conflict. At least, not since Canada became a country. Of course if we are talking about the territory that is now called Canada, there have been at least three invasions by the united states that I can think of. Luckily, none of them were successful.

[jbg]

The one thing that stands out about our relations is that unlike the way things unfolded in Europe between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the onset of Pax Americana after 1945, we haven't fought militarily. The differences tend to be irritants, not casus belli. I firmly believe that is one of the reasons for our greater collective prosperity.

Now, the fact that we largely speak a common language does help that process. It is hard to fight one's siblings.

True, both of our countries can be happy that our differences have not been so large as to create a military conflict. At least, not since Canada became a country. Of course if we are talking about the territory that is now called Canada, there have been at least three invasions by the united states that I can think of. Luckily, none of them were successful.

Well, we can refer to the invasion of 1774, in which we were extremely successful. I bet NS wishes it didn't merely "observe" the Declaration of Independence being signed, but actually signed and joined.