Americans insult Canadians

[August1991]

Actors in one "man on the street" ad take turns as apologists for Ford's alleged shortcomings in policy and in character, with one expressing the view that Democrats and Canada are both soft on the issue of global security.

"Canada can take care of North Korea," the man in the ad says. "They're not busy."

CBC

I found this bit intriguing too:

In the same ad, a blonde woman claims she met Ford, an African-American, at a Playboy party and beckons the candidate to "call me."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People categorized the ad in a statement as "a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women."

[Riverwind]

Yet another ad, however, takes aim at Ford's pro-choice stance, alleging "[Ford] wants to give the abortion pill to our schoolchildren."

I don't know what is sadder - the fact that candidates resort to these kinds of slimeball tactics or the fact that they work.

[killjoy]

I don't know what is sadder - the fact that candidates resort to these kinds of slimeball tactics or the fact that they work.

The fact that it works. That's what solidifies it as a tactic. If it didn't work they'd have switched tactics long ago.

From the story:

"Is this what Canadians should be expecting as the outcome of cozying up to Mr. Bush by the prime minister and his Conservatives?" said Alghabra.

Then there's also the idea that not calling Bush a moron and then calling that a foreign policy amounts to 'cozying up with Bush'.

.

[August1991]

From the story:

"Is this what Canadians should be expecting as the outcome of cozying up to Mr. Bush by the prime minister and his Conservatives?" said Alghabra.

Then there's also the idea that not calling Bush a moron and then calling that a foreign policy amounts to 'cozying up with Bush'.

IOW, the Liberals just won't miss an occasion or any excuse to somehow connect Harper to Bush.

That's a bad strategy and the Liberals are making a mistake pursuing it.

[Wilber]

Interesting story but we all know America bashing has never been part of a Canadian election campaign don't we.

[Remiel]

...?

I'm not really sure that I can adequately comment on the sheer stupidity of that suggestion.

(The one about Canada taking care of North Korea.)

[bradco]

"They're not busy."

Except we're taking a large role in Afghanistan (a war which was fought in the self-defense of the United States and where we came to their aid)

Is it really our fault we're not all that busy compared to the globe trotting US forces? We simply have less threats against us.

[ft.niagara]

Actors in one "man on the street" ad take turns as apologists for Ford's alleged shortcomings in policy and in character, with one expressing the view that Democrats and Canada are both soft on the issue of global security.

"Canada can take care of North Korea," the man in the ad says. "They're not busy."

CBC

I found this bit intriguing too:

In the same ad, a blonde woman claims she met Ford, an African-American, at a Playboy party and beckons the candidate to "call me."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People categorized the ad in a statement as "a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women."

This has NOTHING to do with Americans Insulting Canadians.

[America1]

"They're not busy."

Except we're taking a large role in Afghanistan (a war which was fought in the self-defense of the United States and where we came to their aid)

Is it really our fault we're not all that busy compared to the globe trotting US forces? We simply have less threats against us.

Not that I don't respect the service of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan b/c I do, very much. But,,, Canada has what 3,500 (give or take) troops in Afghan. Not exactly a huge number by any means.

You have less threats against you b/c no one will mess with you as long you are located next to the US. You are under the protection of the US and you should be thankfull about it.

[Remiel]

And the U.S. has what, 22,000? That means that by population, we have almost 50% more troops there. As for North Korea, don't they have more people in their military than the U.S. does?

[Shakeyhands]

[You have less threats against you b/c no one will mess with you as long you are located next to the US. You are under the protection of the US and you should be thankfull about it.

This is such an ignorant statement.

[America1]

[You have less threats against you b/c no one will mess with you as long you are located next to the US. You are under the protection of the US and you should be thankfull about it.

This is such an ignorant statement.

Why? Is it in anyway incorrect? Do you deny it?

You know perfectly well that Canada has not had to maintain a large military b/c the US would never allow a war against one of it's neighbors without intervening.

[America1]

And the U.S. has what, 22,000? That means that by population, we have almost 50% more troops there. As for North Korea, don't they have more people in their military than the U.S. does?

About 25,000 but close enough. What does pop % have to do with anything? 3,500 soldiers is not a "large" amount. It is helpful and I am proud to have them working with us. As I said I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the soldiers from Canada. But a large force, 3,500 are not.

Yes they do. Is there a point here b/c it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation at hand?

[gerryhatrick]

[You have less threats against you b/c no one will mess with you as long you are located next to the US. You are under the protection of the US and you should be thankfull about it.

This is such an ignorant statement.

Why? Is it in anyway incorrect? Do you deny it?

You know perfectly well that Canada has not had to maintain a large military b/c the US would never allow a war against one of it's neighbors without intervening.

We need to beef up our military to protect us from the US.

[America1]

[You have less threats against you b/c no one will mess with you as long you are located next to the US. You are under the protection of the US and you should be thankfull about it.

This is such an ignorant statement.

Why? Is it in anyway incorrect? Do you deny it?

You know perfectly well that Canada has not had to maintain a large military b/c the US would never allow a war against one of it's neighbors without intervening.

We need to beef up our military to protect us from the US.

Yes you do, our tanks are already on the way up there.

Honestly, please explain why.....

[ft.niagara]

We need to beef up our military to protect us from the US.

Frankly, I am surprised that Canada has any troops abroad. I may be wrong, but does the Canadian miliary number 50000, and their weaponry consist of small arms.

The idea that big nations should act as peacekeepers is a post WWII idea, and not everyone is on board with the idea.

[M.Dancer]

Frankly, I am surprised that Canada has any troops abroad. I may be wrong, but does the Canadian miliary number 50000, and their weaponry consist of small arms.

Yeah..small arms, howitzers, tanks, SA missiles, frigates destroyers....small arms

The idea that big nations should act as peacekeepers is a post WWII idea, and not everyone is on board with the idea.

Umm....yeah, post war...post suez crisis war.......

Actually though, the original intent of the UN, was expressed in Korea when US and allied forces under the UN umbrella resisted the agression from the North....unfortunately the format of the UN, which was what Churchill and FDR intended, and unintended results, that being, there would never again be a armed response to naked agression....at least until 1990.

[killjoy]

Frankly, I am surprised that Canada has any troops abroad.

Frankly, since we're all talking about insults here, I'm a little insulted that as an American you didn't know we had troops in Afghanistan, let alone that we are suffering the highest per capita casualty rate there.

It always astounds me how the US can continually belittle it's allies and at the same time wonder why they're running out of them.

.

[FTA Lawyer]

And the U.S. has what, 22,000? That means that by population, we have almost 50% more troops there. As for North Korea, don't they have more people in their military than the U.S. does?

About 25,000 but close enough. What does pop % have to do with anything? 3,500 soldiers is not a "large" amount. It is helpful and I am proud to have them working with us. As I said I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the soldiers from Canada. But a large force, 3,500 are not.

Yes they do. Is there a point here b/c it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation at hand?

I assume America1 that you will agree that a non-conscriptive military (as both of our countries presently have) obtains its numbers from those members of the population who volunteer for service and are able to pass admissibility requirements.

I assume that you will also agree that only a percentage of any population will fit the two preconditions above.

I assume that you understand that Canada has approximately 10% of the overall population of the US.

So, you would agree that by simple math and demographics, Canada will always have a much smaller military than will the US.

And you would agree that, again by simple math, a commitment of 3500 troops from a total available number of 10,000 would be a much more major commitment than 3500 troops from a total of 100,000.

Now, if you really can't understand that population % is a direct factor in the size of the contingent of troops that any non-conscriptive country can commit to a war then I fail to see the point in continuing to debate.

As far as us having less threats than the US because we are close to the US, that simply makes no sense. While I agree that Canada might have more people willing to attack us if we were not right beside a country that many are afraid to piss off, that has nothing to do with why we have less threats as compared to the very country that many are afraid to piss off.

(You see, if terror cells 1 through 10 and rogue countries A, B, C, and D all want to attack Canada but don't because we are right beside the US...and these people don't want to mess with the US...then 1-10 and A, B, C, and D are not the entities that pose any threat to the US either. Based on your theory of geographical proximity, any entity that was a threat to the US (i.e. not afraid to mess with US) would not be non-threatening to Canada for reasons of proximity to the US...it must be for some other reason)

In fact, if all things were equal and Canada ran identical foreign policies and had identical history in terms of war vs peacekeeping etc. with the US, then we would have more threats because we would be the weak link to be exploited in getting to the US.

FTA

[ft.niagara]

In fact, if all things were equal and Canada ran identical foreign policies and had identical history in terms of war vs peacekeeping etc. with the US, then we would have more threats because we would be the weak link to be exploited in getting to the US.

FTA

So this explains why Canada remains distant from US with regard to foreign policy.

[jdobbin]

So this explains why Canada remains distant from US with regard to foreign policy.

Aside from Iraq and Vietnam, I can't think of a difference in foreign conflicts.

[ft.niagara]

It always astounds me how the US can continually belittle it's allies and at the same time wonder why they're running out of them.

BS. Just look around your forum to discover the belittling you talk about. This forum Canada/US Relations is a set aside for US bashing. A number of casuaties in A resulted in friendly fire when night fire target exercises were conducted with tracer rounds. I would think that you would NOT go there for target practice. And the running out of them (friends) is a BS since like France, Germany, and Canada they were questionable to begin with.

[jdobbin]

BS. Just look around your forum to discover the belittling you talk about. This forum Canada/US Relations is a set aside for US bashing. A number of casuaties in A resulted in friendly fire when night fire target exercises were conducted with tracer rounds. I would think that you would NOT go there for target practice. And the running out of them (friends) is a BS since like France, Germany, and Canada they were questionable to begin with.

The U.S. was well aware of the live fire exercise. They told the officer to hold fire. He didn't and subsequently, he was court martialled.

[killjoy]

BS? You didn't address anything I said so how can it be BS? Instead you continued a different argument entirely. You belittle our forces yet freely admit you know nothing about them - that's not BS it's just plain stupidity. We're fighting (and dying) with you in Afghanistan and you can't even acknowledge it now- that's not BS......instead you argue someone else's point...one I didn't make.

BS? You didn't address a single thing I said so how can it be BS?

Instead you continued a different argument entirely. You belittle our forces yet freely admit you know nothing about them - that's not BS it's just plain stupidity. We're fighting (and dying) with you in Afghanistan and you can't even acknowledge it now- that's not BS......instead you argue someone else's point...one I didn't make.

If you want to see my opinion of "American Bashing" look here (and the posts that follow) then start arguing what I say instead of what you wish I said.

.

[ft.niagara]

Aside from Iraq and Vietnam, I can't think of a difference in foreign conflicts.

It is one thing to not be involved, and it another to be culpable in actively working to defeat. VietNam, harboring draft dodgers. Iraq, the CBC, government mouthpiece, is not much better than Al Jazerra.