Should Canada Bend Over/Stand Up to America?

[gc1765]

Don't forget the war of 1812. Didn't we burn down their white house? Haha, way to go Canada!!

[jbg]

Don't forget the war of 1812. Didn't we burn down their white house? Haha, way to go Canada!!

Artist: Arrogant Worms

Song: The War Of 1812 (Link)

Album:

[" " CD]

oo come back proud canadians

before you had tv

no hockey night in canada

there was no cbc

in 1812 madison was mad

he was the president, you know

but he thought he tell the british where they ought to go

he thougth he'd invade canada

he thought that he was tough

instead he went to washington

and burned down all his stuff

and the whitehouse burned burned burned

and we're the ones that did it

it burned burned burned

while the president ran and cried

it burned burned burned

and things were very historical

and the americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies

wa wa waaaa

in the war of 1812

now hillbillies from kentucky

dressed in green and red

left home to fight in canada

but they returned home dead

its only war the yankees lost

except for vietnam

and also the alamo

and the bay of... ham

the loser was america

the winner was ourselves

so join right in and gloat about

the war of 1812

and the whitehouse burned burned burned

and we're the ones that did it

it burned burned burned

while the president ran and cried

it burned burned burned

and things were very historical

and the americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies

wa wa waaaa

in the war of 1812

in 1812 we were just sittin' around

mindin' our own business

puttin' crops into the ground

we heard the soldiers coming

and we didnt like that sound

so we took a boat to washington

and burned it to the ground

oh, oh...

we burned our guns

but the yankees kept on coming

there wasn't quite as many

as there was a while ago

we fired once more

and the yankees started runnin

down the mississippi to the gulf of mexico

they ran through the snow

and they ran through the forest

they ran throught the bushes where the beavers wouldn't go

they ran so fast that they forgot to take their culture

back to america, gulf, and texico

So, if you go to Washington, its buildings clean and nice,

Bring a pack of matches, and we’ll burn the White House twice!

and the whitehouse burned burned burned

but the americans won't admit it

it burned, burned, burned,

it burned and burned and burned

it burned, burned, burned,

now, i bet that made them mad

and the americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies

waa waa waah!

in the war of 1812!

[jbg]

Don't forget the war of 1812. Didn't we burn down their white house? Haha, way to go Canada!!

THE BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS (BRITISH VERSION) (link)

(Jimmie Driftwood)

In eighteen-fourteen we took a little trip

Along with Colonel Packingham up to Mississipp'

We took a little bacon and we took a little beans

And we met the bloomy Rebels in the town of New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the Rebels kept a comin'

There wasn't night as many as there was a while ago

We fired once more and they began to runnin'

On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked up the river and we seen the Rebels come

While we head at least a hundred of 'em beatin' on the drum

They stepped so high and we made our bugles ring

While they stood beside the cotton bails and didn't say a thing.

We fired our guns and the Rebels kept a comin'

There wasn't night as many as there was a while ago

We fired once more and they began to runnin'

On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Old Hickory said we'd take 'em by surprise

If we didn't fire a musket till we looked 'em in the eyes

We held our fire till we seen their faces well

Then we opened up our squirrel guns and really gave 'em hell.

We fired our guns and the Rebels kept a comin'

There wasn't night as many as there was a while ago

We fired once more and they began to runnin'

On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles

And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go

They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em

On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

They fired their cannon till the barrel melted down

So they grabbed the alligator and they fought another round

They filled his head with cannonballs and powdered his behind

And when they took the powder off the gator lost his mind.

We fired our guns and the Rebels kept a comin'

There wasn't night as many as there was a while ago

We fired once more and they began to runnin'

On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

They ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles

And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go

They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em

On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico...

=====================================

See a Yank can have a sense of humor (though not humour).

[gc1765]

I've heard that Arrogant Worms song before. Hilarious stuff.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Canadians need to realize that we are partners in North America with the US of A. This isn't exactly our town we are talking about, we just a little country acreage out of town. We have less fancy services and less crime and such but its still a fair sized neighborhood that we all live in. We have more in common than we would each like to admit. Then there are more differences than we would like to admit to. All the same we are more akin to kissing cousins than anything else.

What Canada needs to do is EARN the respect of the Americans. Until we do we will be the naive country hicks up north somewhere. To improve relations with America is the easiest political excercise on the planet, if you are a Canadian. Unfortunately our nanny state government can't see the trees for the forest and figure it out. In this day and age the single most important focus of the US government is security. Forget trade or culture and even political differences the sole focus of the US is border security and the protection of its citizens in the post 9/11 world. If Canada was serious about improving US relations it should offer a continental defense pact with military integration. Call it NORAD on roids if you want but this little gesture would have the Americans doing handstands in Congress. What the Americans NEED is a local partner with a vested interest in North American defense.

What both nations NEED is to create an economic development strategy to compete in global markets. The way to do that is to utilize American manufacturing methods with Canadian raw materials and Mexican labour. The target of exported goods should not initially be Asian, but South America instead. The reason for this is the difference in consumer groups. Chinese consumers will buy domestic products to support their own economy as will the Indians. South America is relatively light in secondary industry but it has a growing population which translates into an increasing consumer market. Going south instead of east will provide a cushion and serve as a spring board to launch into Asia from a more dominate position attained through lower production costs. We need to rethink our economic concepts on order to survive, and America is as much an answer to Canada as we are to them. All that we have to do is believe in each other and we can make it happen.

Should Canada fail to take advantage of the current situation that is rapidly developing in terms of security and economy we will be utterly destroyed and sink into political oblivion.

[Topaz]

When a Dem was the US president, we didn't have problems, BUT Bush is so different from the Republic president of the past. He came to DC to do regime change in two countries and his attitude, sometimes isn't very presdiential. As far Canada, I've always thought the the US shouldn't be our lead country of exports or imports. Its big world out there and I'm sure we should expand out horizons. Canada is a very liked country and I hope Harper doesn't change that by getting too close to Bush, who isn't very well liked!

[jbg]

When a Dem was the US president, we didn't have problems, BUT Bush is so different from the Republic president of the past. He came to DC to do regime change in two countries and his attitude, sometimes isn't very presdiential.

Oh yes, JFK and Dief got along famously? Or Johnson and Pearson? ("Don't p*ss on my rug"). Oh sure.

As far Canada, I've always thought the the US shouldn't be our lead country of exports or imports. Its big world out there and I'm sure we should expand out horizons. Canada is a very liked country and I hope Harper doesn't change that by getting too close to Bush, who isn't very well liked!

Geography makes that impossible. It's simply cheaper to ship and receive from the US than over water.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

When a Dem was the US president, we didn't have problems, BUT Bush is so different from the Republic president of the past. He came to DC to do regime change in two countries and his attitude, sometimes isn't very presdiential. As far Canada, I've always thought the the US shouldn't be our lead country of exports or imports. Its big world out there and I'm sure we should expand out horizons. Canada is a very liked country and I hope Harper doesn't change that by getting too close to Bush, who isn't very well liked!

I discount the entire premise of these statements. Canada has always had problems of one sort or another. There is simply no reason to blame the USA for our problems. The differences between our two nations stem from minor disputes in business, in political terms there is very few problems between our nations. With all due respect our economic attachment to the USA is beneficial, and could be advantageous with a little tinkering.

World opinion is becoming polarized. The economic giants actually get along fine with our southern friends, it is the third world countries for the most part that are causing problems.

[Gowch]

When a Dem was the US president, we didn't have problems, BUT Bush is so different from the Republic president of the past. He came to DC to do regime change in two countries and his attitude, sometimes isn't very presdiential. As far Canada, I've always thought the the US shouldn't be our lead country of exports or imports. Its big world out there and I'm sure we should expand out horizons. Canada is a very liked country and I hope Harper doesn't change that by getting too close to Bush, who isn't very well liked!

I discount the entire premise of these statements. Canada has always had problems of one sort or another. There is simply no reason to blame the USA for our problems. The differences between our two nations stem from minor disputes in business, in political terms there is very few problems between our nations. With all due respect our economic attachment to the USA is beneficial, and could be advantageous with a little tinkering.

World opinion is becoming polarized. The economic giants actually get along fine with our southern friends, it is the third world countries for the most part that are causing problems.

I suggest you consider that those Third World countries "cause problems"

because the United Snakes and its fellow Western "economic giants" have

for years colluded to rob them of their resources, while excluding them

from world markets where they might compete successfully with the USA

and friends.

Those Third World nations don't "cause problems" because of irrational

spite, or jealousy or bloody-mindedness. They "cause problems" because they

are acutely aware that their poverty isn't an unfortunate result of geography,

the inferiority of their people or happenstance. They know damn well that they

are being kept poor by Uncle Sam and his avaricious collaborators.

If you have even the slightest doubt about the truth of this, just do a bit

of research into the history of the incessant and incessantly futile world

agricultural trade talks, in which the U.S., Canada and major European

powers consistently bar Third World farmers from offering their products

on markets on which they can't possibly compete with rivals who are

heavily subsidized by their governments.

If the Third World "causes problems," it is because the Third World is all

too aware that it is being screwed by the First and Second Worlds.

-IG

[Liam]

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.

You helped in Afghanistan for two reasons: 1) NATO nations pitched in to help fight (when one is attacked, the alliance responds as though all were attacked); and, 2) it was a moral decision to help your neighbor and take down a renegade government that proved itself to be a lethal threat against the civilized world. You got nothing because NATO allies don't treat each other's militaries as groups of mercenaries. I didn't realize Canada's (or Britain's) expectation is that its military operates as a revenue generator.

[gc1765]

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.

You helped in Afghanistan for two reasons: 1) NATO nations pitched in to help fight (when one is attacked, the alliance responds as though all were attacked); and, 2) it was a moral decision to help your neighbor and take down a renegade government that proved itself to be a lethal threat against the civilized world.

#1) Agreed. But keep in mind that the U.S. was more than capable of invading afghanistan on their own, in fact they preferred to go it alone. It was only after the taliban had retreated & the insurgency was the only remaining defence that the U.S. welcomed NATO for the difficult task of rebuilding the country.

#2) Exactly like you said "...to help your neighbor...". Bin laden was much more of a threat to the U.S. than to Canada. I believe it was only after Canada participated in the war in afghanistan that bin laden promised to attack Canada, and though Canadians did die in 9/11, they weren't specifically targeted. That was an attack against the U.S., and Canadians just happened to be there.

You got nothing because NATO allies don't treat each other's militaries as groups of mercenaries. I didn't realize Canada's (or Britain's) expectation is that its military operates as a revenue generator.

I never once asked, or even suggested that the U.S. should pay Canada for it's military operations. All I said was that the least the U.S. could do to a friendly neighbor who helped them out in a time of crisis is abide by NAFTA, instead of hurting our economy. Is that too much to ask?

[Charles Anthony]

All I said was that the least the U.S. could do to a friendly neighbor who helped them out in a time of crisis is abide by NAFTA, instead of hurting our economy. Is that too much to ask?

The softwood lumber dispute is outside of NAFTA. Nevertheless, you are asking for a favor to be returned in the form of commerce which is the same as asking to be paid.

[gc1765]

All I said was that the least the U.S. could do to a friendly neighbor who helped them out in a time of crisis is abide by NAFTA, instead of hurting our economy. Is that too much to ask?

The softwood lumber dispute is outside of NAFTA. Nevertheless, you are asking for a favor to be returned in the form of commerce which is the same as asking to be paid.

No, I am not asking for a favour. I am asking the U.S. to play by the rules. Why should the U.S. intentionally do something that hurts Canada's economy? Is that something a good neighbor would do?

[Charles Anthony]

No, I am not asking for a favour. I am asking the U.S. to play by the rules.

What rules are you talking about?

Consider me wanting to buy your bakery. You are an old baker wanting to retire and I am a young baker wanting a business. What do we do??? We haggle. I want to get the lowest price (but I do not want to be out-bid by a third baker) and you want to get the highest price (but you do not want me to go buy somebody else's bakery). The haggling continues but there are no rules for this business deal.

The softwood lumber dispute was a little more complicate but neither side was asking for free trade.

[gc1765]

No, I am not asking for a favour. I am asking the U.S. to play by the rules.

What rules are you talking about?

The ones that NAFTA and the WTO have repeatedly said the U.S. broke, that the U.S. should not be charging duties:

WTO softwood ruling favours Canada

Nafta panel declares U.S. Softwood Lumber Countervailing Duty Illegal

Canada wins NAFTA softwood ruling

Canada wins another round in softwood battle with U.S.

WTO appeal reverses lumber ruling

[Charles Anthony]

What rules are you talking about?

The ones that NAFTA and the WTO have repeatedly said the U.S. broke, that the U.S. should not be charging duties:

Thank you.

Now, what do you suggest Canadians should do with respect to future military engagements vis-a-vis the States?

[gc1765]

What rules are you talking about?

The ones that NAFTA and the WTO have repeatedly said the U.S. broke, that the U.S. should not be charging duties:

Thank you.

Now, what do you suggest Canadians should do with respect to future military engagements vis-a-vis the States?

I suppose we would have to consider each case individually. If the United States were to get attacked again, by say north korea or iran, I think Canada should offer to support any military action as we did in afghanistan, and as we are obliged to do under NATO. If the United States decided to start a war, without U.N. approval, and without a cause that Canada believes is just, then we should not support them simply for the sake of supporting them. I don't know if that's why Britain decided to support the war in Iraq, or whether Britain wanted to go to war for it's own purposes, but if they did it only to support the U.S. then they got screwed. I think the U.S. & george bush were very grateful that Britain joined the war since it provided slightly more legitimacy, but what have they done to show their appreciation for that favour, if indeed it was a favour? Tony Blair has pressured Bush to sign Kyoto but bush has refused.

[Charles Anthony]

I suppose we would have to consider each case individually. If the United States were to get attacked again, by say north korea or iran, I think Canada should offer to support any military action as we did in afghanistan, and as we are obliged to do under NATO.

Are you open to the Canadian military joining American forces overseas and following direct American command?

[gc1765]

I suppose we would have to consider each case individually. If the United States were to get attacked again, by say north korea or iran, I think Canada should offer to support any military action as we did in afghanistan, and as we are obliged to do under NATO.

Are you open to the Canadian military joining American forces overseas and following direct American command?

Sure, I don't see why not.

[Wilber]

When it comes to trade, the great majority of protectionist Senators in the US are Democrats.

[Charles Anthony]

Are you open to the Canadian military joining American forces overseas and following direct American command?

Sure, I don't see why not.

I have encountered that same view from other Canadians as well. I just do not understand how to reconcile a brotherly relationship with respect to national security and military combat but an adversarial relationship with respect to commerce. I find it bizarre.

The only explanation that I have is simplistic: we are dealing with two different groups of Canadians.

The general public is duped into supporting military missions.

The crony-capitalists are involved in trade disputes for personal gain.

You helped in Afghanistan for two reasons:

The trouble with this reasoning is that the decisions to go to war by all countries are made in back-rooms by a select unaccountable few people. The general public rarely knows the true reasons nor are they consulted. What does it mean to say: "You etc...." to me or to any other individual? What if I told you that I believe that what is happening in Afghanistan is purely securing a drug trade?

[gc1765]

I have encountered that same view from other Canadians as well. I just do not understand how to reconcile a brotherly relationship with respect to national security and military combat but an adversarial relationship with respect to commerce. I find it bizarre.

The only explanation that I have is simplistic: we are dealing with two different groups of Canadians.

The general public is duped into supporting military missions.

The crony-capitalists are involved in trade disputes for personal gain.

Well, like I said before, Canada should do what is best for Canada. It is my personal opinion that it is in Canada's best interest to be a part of NATO, and therefore should have joined the mission in afghanistan when the U.S. was attacked. If Canada were to ever be attacked (which is probably not that likely, let's hope not anyways) I can only assume that other NATO countries (including the U.S.) will support us. I would still argue against sending troops somewhere for the sole purpose of appeasing the U.S. If the Iraq war was not in the best interest of Canadians (which many would agree that it was not) then we should not be sending troops just to appease the U.S.

In terms of commerce, again I think Canada should do what is in Canada's best interest. In the case of softwood lumber, I think Canada should do it's best to try to remove as many restrictions as possible on trade that the U.S. has imposed (ie trying to get tariffs lowered/removed).

Another case is the legalization of marijuana, a topic which I haven't brought up until now. There are many in Canada who would argue that we should not decriminalize marijuana because it would make the U.S. mad. If decriminalizing marijuana is in the best interest of Canadians, then we should go ahead and do it. We should not let the U.S. dictate laws to a sovereign nation like Canada. I thought it was funny how Mexico decided to decriminalize certain drugs, the U.S. opposed that idea, and Mexico completely backtracked.

[mcqueen625]

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.

August, is this just another one of your anti-US rants. Please give us all a break, most people have more to do than cry and moan about something we can do noting about. THe reality is that we are tied to the US because of trade, and yes it was a P.C. Prime Minister who origially signed the FTA, but I believe it was successive Liberal governments who chose to stay the course. Why is that? Because even they knew that we are reliant on the US for trade and protection. Let's face it Canada's Armed Forces are a joke, a mere shadow of what they once were, and I for one am only too glad to know that they are there for us, because short-sighted Liberal politicians have destroyed any defense forces we had. If you are naive enough to believe that we are safe from terrorist attacks, please remember that Bin Ladin specifically mentioned Canada in his rants, partly because of our involvement in the Middle East, but mostly because these terrorist organizations consider all Westerners to be infidels, and need to be destroted.

[Wilber]

Another case is the legalization of marijuana, a topic which I haven't brought up until now. There are many in Canada who would argue that we should not decriminalize marijuana because it would make the U.S. mad. If decriminalizing marijuana is in the best interest of Canadians, then we should go ahead and do it. We should not let the U.S. dictate laws to a sovereign nation like Canada. I thought it was funny how Mexico decided to decriminalize certain drugs, the U.S. opposed that idea, and Mexico completely backtracked.

The question is whether it is in Canada's interest to make the US mad and if so how mad can you make them before it is no longer in Canada's interest. That has always been the Canadian dilemma but whether we like it or not, it is a real one. We are a sovereign nation but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences to our actions from outside our country.

[jbg]

Another case is the legalization of marijuana, a topic which I haven't brought up until now. There are many in Canada who would argue that we should not decriminalize marijuana because it would make the U.S. mad. If decriminalizing marijuana is in the best interest of Canadians, then we should go ahead and do it. We should not let the U.S. dictate laws to a sovereign nation like Canada. I thought it was funny how Mexico decided to decriminalize certain drugs, the U.S. opposed that idea, and Mexico completely backtracked.

The question is whether it is in Canada's interest to make the US mad and if so how mad can you make them before it is no longer in Canada's interest. That has always been the Canadian dilemma but whether we like it or not, it is a real one. We are a sovereign nation but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences to our actions from outside our country.

The US really does not have this one right. My state, New York, "decriminalized" pot back in 1977 or 1978 in exactly the same manner as the previous Liberal bill did. Bush might as well through up a barricade to keep New Yorkers apart from residents of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Pennsylvania and New Jersey (the states with which it has a border).

I generally support Bush, but for once he is wrong on this one.