Does Canada have any political interest?

[Leafless]

I am sick and tired of reading constant U.S. bashing.

Does Canada not have any political interest worth fighting for? Or are political and material benefits at the expense of the U.S. while labelling them such horrible names as terrorist the Canadian norm?

Hypocritical or what.

[Shakeyhands]

Leafless, what do you mean? are you refering to this board or the general populous?

[Leafless]

I am referring to members of this board.

But back to the question to those who are critical especially of U.S foreign policy.

"Does Canada not have any political interest worth fighting for? Or are political and material benefits at the expense of the U.S. while labelling them such horrible names as terrorist the Canadian norm?"

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

I am referring to members of this board.

But back to the question to those who are critical especially of U.S foreign policy

I shall stand up and say that I am one of those to whom you refer.

"Does Canada not have any political interest worth fighting for?

I should like to think so, but they aren't really doing so. I support our troops in Afghanistan, but believe the mission itself to be misguided and not focused in the right direction. Further, I lament the fact that a real 'war' was not proclaimed, which has handcuffed efforts that might have otherwise been far more effective.

To compare Canada to the US, and why I am critical of US foreign policy, Rwanda is a good example. Canada was one of the few countries to actually attempt intervention, even though our military has been grossly neglected. The US refused to send any troops at all, saying that the fiscal reality was that it would take the lives of roughly 80,000+ Rwandans to equal the life of 1 US soldier.

Talisman Energy is another example, where they were pretty much funding the local militia to either displace or kill the local inhabitants to gain access to oilfields, with profit being the only concern. Talisman, under much public pressure, withdrew from the venture. In my opinion, that would never have happened were the US involved. In fact, the US would support through money and arms, and sometimes training and materiel, to many ruthless dictators, extremist groups, and tribal warlords if it ensured profits for US based companies, or temporary gains in political climate. Some of these dictators included: Saddam Hussein (formerly 'democratically elected' dictator of Iraq), Manuel Noriega (paid by the US army for 31 years, and by the CIA for 15 years), 'Papa Doc' Duvalier (former dictator of Haiti), Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (Afghani anti-western extremist and Muslim fundamentalist), Augusto Pinochet (former dictator of Chile), Jonas Savimbi (Head of UNITA of Angola, where brutal atrocities were commonplace, and saw heavier fighting than the Balkans conflict at the time, but was kept out of mainstream news...)...etc, etc, etc...

So, while I remain critical of US foreign policy on points such as these, it is the abject hypocrisy of the US, claiming to be 'champions of freedom' on one hand, with the other hand covered in blood for their own gain that moreso doth rankle my soul.

Lastly, Canada should be preparing for an all-out religious war that appears to be looming. If I should be called upon to join that fight, I can bet you that I won't be fighting on behalf of any religion.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

Or are political and material benefits at the expense of the U.S. while labelling them such horrible names as terrorist the Canadian norm?"

Not sure what you mean here, what exactly are the 'political and material benefits' that we have that come at the expense of the US?

[Leafless]

To compare Canada to the US, and why I am critical of US foreign policy, Rwanda is a good example. Canada was one of the few countries to actually attempt intervention, even though our military has been grossly neglected. The US refused to send any troops at all, saying that the fiscal reality was that it would take the lives of roughly 80,000+ Rwandans to equal the life of 1 US soldier.

Are you suggesting the U.S. unilaterally play 'good cops' to the world?

You know this is not the case and if the U.S. did intervene, every other country in the world would be at their doorstep to bail them out in the event of a conflict.

[Leafless]

Dear Leafless,

Or are political and material benefits at the expense of the U.S. while labelling them such horrible names as terrorist the Canadian norm?"

Not sure what you mean here, what exactly are the 'political and material benefits' that we have that come at the expense of the US?

What I am talking about is Canada's development as a country, which was basically solely developed at the hands of the U.S.

Yes, Canada was exploited and we did not fight it , we allowed it to happen. We have allowed and welcomed U.S. domination and all the trimmings.

But in the long run I for one am thankful we have basically a U.S. type society in Canada and would not want it any other way despite the efforts of certain Canadian political parties who's primary aim is to try to destroy a freer U.S. type society in Canada and replace it with a more dictatorial type government more common with oppressed countries.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

Are you suggesting the U.S. unilaterally play 'good cops' to the world?

They claim that they do, I wish they would prove it. Whether one plays the role of 'good cop' or 'bad cop', they still remain 'cops', which would ultimately be a good thing. However, the US often plays both roles of 'cops and robbers'.

What I am talking about is Canada's development as a country, which was basically solely developed at the hands of the U.S.

I disagree. We are similar in a lot of ways, yet remarkably different in others. I will admit that not all of those differences are 'good', but then again, not all of the similarities are either.

[Leafless]

Dear Leafless,

Are you suggesting the U.S. unilaterally play 'good cops' to the world?

They claim that they do, I wish they would prove it. Whether one plays the role of 'good cop' or 'bad cop', they still remain 'cops', which would ultimately be a good thing. However, the US often plays both roles of 'cops and robbers'.

I think the only time they try to instill a democratic government is when they are threatened or attacked and are forced to go in as what is proven with Afghanistan and Iraq.

I don't consider this a bad thing.

[geoffrey]

Iraq was no threat to the US. If you want to make the case that Saddam was a human rights abuser, I'll side with you on this one, but saying the US installed a roughly democratic regime in Iraq to protect their security is silly.

[Leafless]

Iraq was no threat to the US. If you want to make the case that Saddam was a human rights abuser, I'll side with you on this one, but saying the US installed a roughly democratic regime in Iraq to protect their security is silly.

That is a matter of opinion if Iraq was a threat to U.S. interest.

The U.S invasion in Iraq left the U.S. in a position as a force responsible for law and order and left to implement a system naturally desirable to U.S. interest, beginning with the installation of a democratic government, which they are currently trying to accomplish.

[geoffrey]

That is a matter of opinion if Iraq was a threat to U.S. interest.

Is it your opinion that the US faced a physical threat from Mr. Hussien?

US interests perhaps, but physical violence is not an acceptable measure in response to economic threats.

The U.S invasion in Iraq left the U.S. in a position as a force responsible for law and order and left to implement a system naturally desirable to U.S. interest, beginning with the installation of a democratic government, which they are currently trying to accomplish.

That's fine with me, the invasion is over and I support the Americans in what they are doing now. Democracy is a good thing to install, if the Iraqi's don't like it, they can vote it right outta there. Unfortunately it seems like most Iraqi's are ready to get on with life, making money and raising families in peace... but the Sunni fundamentalists won't allow it to happen.

[bush_cheney2004]

...To compare Canada to the US, and why I am critical of US foreign policy, Rwanda is a good example. Canada was one of the few countries to actually attempt intervention, even though our military has been grossly neglected. The US refused to send any troops at all, saying that the fiscal reality was that it would take the lives of roughly 80,000+ Rwandans to equal the life of 1 US soldier. ..

Nevertheless, Canada's "intervention" amounted to squat, and admitted to by General Dallaire. Whose policies decimated funding for Canadian Forces? Which other nations ignored impassioned please for help in Rwanda. Are you not critical of Russia, or France, or U.K, or China, or Japan because there is no hypocrisy?

Canada did not lead....as no one would follow.

I thought it was hypocritical of Canada to bomb the hell out of Serbs for "human rights" in 1999.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear bush_cheney2004,

Whose policies decimated funding for Canadian Forces?

I suppose it could be argued that it was a long, steady decline started by Diefenbaker.

Are you not critical of Russia, or France, or U.K, or China, or Japan because there is no hypocrisy?

Their hypocrisy is of a different nature. They aren't claiming to stand for 'truth, freedom and democracy' while commiting actions that are the polar opposite. Tony Blair may be an exception.

Hard-line communist countries are generally run by bald-faced liars.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Their hypocrisy is of a different nature. They aren't claiming to stand for 'truth, freedom and democracy' while commiting actions that are the polar opposite. Tony Blair may be an exception.

Hard-line communist countries are generally run by bald-faced liars.

Hypocrisy is not a crime, and that includes Canada. The label just gets changed to "foreign policy". Like all nation states, the US acts in self interest, not Canadian values, such as they are advertised. Didn't go over well in East Timor, or the Balkans, for instance.

If Canada needs multilateral action to affect foreign policy, then maybe job one ought to be how to get other nations onboard, epecially if it wants American muscle for "humanitarian" missions.

[BC_chick]

I am sick and tired of reading constant U.S. bashing.

Does Canada not have any political interest worth fighting for? Or are political and material benefits at the expense of the U.S. while labelling them such horrible names as terrorist the Canadian norm?

Hypocritical or what.

Some people bash, some people priase the US. Our Liberals bash Conservatives and vice versa. Some love Europe, others don't. We discuss domestic social-issues, as well as economic ones.

I'm not sure if you're only seeing what you want to see, but there is a lot more going on on these boards than US bashing.

[Leafless]

I am sick and tired of reading constant U.S. bashing.

Does Canada not have any political interest worth fighting for? Or are political and material benefits at the expense of the U.S. while labelling them such horrible names as terrorist the Canadian norm?

Hypocritical or what.

Some people bash, some people priase the US. Our Liberals bash Conservatives and vice versa. Some love Europe, others don't. We discuss domestic social-issues, as well as economic ones.

I'm not sure if you're only seeing what you want to see, but there is a lot more going on on these boards than US bashing.

I am not sure you understand.

The U.S. has political interest and this is mostly reflected in their foreign policy, consisting of:

"Protecting the safety and freedom of all American citizens, both within the United States and abroad;

Protecting allied nations of the United States from attack or invasion and creating mutually beneficial international defense arrangements and partnerships to ensure this;

Promotion of peace, freedom (most notably of speech and enterprise), and democracy in all regions of the world;

Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth, improve living conditions everywhere, and promote the sale and mobility of U.S. products to international consumers who desire them; and

Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need. "

*Excerpts from Wikipedia*

What country or especially Canadian individual, in their right mind, could possibly object to this type of foreign policy?

What foreign policy does Canada pursue to further its national interest?

Why are all Canadian national federal parties not in TOTAL agreement in regards to U.S. foreign policy a country that is the lifeblood of Canada?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

Promotion of peace, freedom (most notably of speech and enterprise), and democracy in all regions of the world;

Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth, improve living conditions everywhere, and promote the sale and mobility of U.S. products to international consumers who desire them; and

Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need. "

*Excerpts from Wikipedia*

What country or especially Canadian individual, in their right mind, could possibly object to this type of foreign policy?

Well, this all looks good on paper, but it isn't all true in practice. I don't recall anyone (at least on this forum) disagreeing with the spirit or intent of any of these points.

[Figleaf]

I am sick and tired of reading constant U.S. bashing.

What counts as U.S. bashing? If I say the George W. Bush is the worst president in American history, is that US bashing?

Does Canada not have any political interest worth fighting for?

Sure. Defence of our territory, sovereignty and people. And, by extension, mutual defence of the allies that help us protect ourselves.

Or are political and material benefits at the expense of the U.S. while labelling them such horrible names as terrorist the Canadian norm?

I'm sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence ... what does it mean?

[Figleaf]

What I am talking about is Canada's development as a country, which was basically solely developed at the hands of the U.S.

Bu!!sh!t.

[Leafless]

What I am talking about is Canada's development as a country, which was basically solely developed at the hands of the U.S.

Bu!!sh!t.

Well, maybe you can tell us how Canada became the country it is today, by trading beads with the Indians ans selling fridges to the Eskimos.

Then there's Britain and France and how they greatly contributed to Canada with the other weasel countries in the world that basically want nothing to do with Canada.

What were you saying about bullshit????

[Leafless]

I am sick and tired of reading constant U.S. bashing.

What counts as U.S. bashing? If I say the George W. Bush is the worst president in American history, is that US bashing?

Depends, if you are a citizen of that country, you have that right.

If you are NOT an American citizen then, NO, you are directly bashing Americans who put President Bush in power.

[Leafless]

Does Canada not have any political interest worth fighting for?

Sure. Defence of our territory, sovereignty and people. And, by extension, mutual defence of the allies that help us protect ourselves.

Why don't you be accurate and admit "by extension" is what you really mean, since there is NO WAY, Canada can be described as competent relating to the 'political interest you describe'.

[Figleaf]

What I am talking about is Canada's development as a country, which was basically solely developed at the hands of the U.S.

Bu!!sh!t.

Well, maybe you can tell us how Canada became the country it is today, by trading beads with the Indians ans selling fridges to the Eskimos.

Canadians built Canada. Who we traded with doesn't change that.

[DarkAngel_]

I’m an American, and am... indifferent to our governments policy. Good people have become ignorant of the pampas war mongering devils jumping on the top of their game, lying about acts of peace when thousands die.

if i was president, i would crack down on these half-faced bull-$#!^ers and give them a run for there money!

corporations would be forgiven for there crimes, but well warned that the future should be paved in good will and intent!

as well, technologies for defense and science exploration would take top priorities, as well as settling disputes between wars and crushing 'world' threats, not just US threats... i'd lower pollution faster then any president to date! and open up environmental improvement programs as well as educational 'hubs' for the children of our day to learn whatever they wanted.

i'd settle immigration probs. by adopting the 'universal' health care plan, and by improving Mexico, so they'd move back of their own free will! as well as sending special ops groups to hunt down terrorist leaders one, by filthy one.

i'd implement those technologies to pave a better living standard in all countries, and shut down the UN for their past transgressions and current lack of progress, opening a new program centered in a world headquarters, laws would be past to every state, and country supremacy would no longer be a problem, as every country would not have the right to be "confidential" to it's people, at least not 100%.

i can only hope a president will be elected that does not cater to the 'devils' that have sneaked into leadership.

honesty is the only way to build trust, and make enemies; good freinds.