 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Canadian Star Federation Empire Thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
#152
by Citizen Sirian - 2/10/2004 3:30:35 AM
I like to describe the relationship between Canada and the USA as similar to that between two brothers.
You have common interests and beliefs. You'll always be there for your brother, but you don't necessarily agree or like everything they do. |
|
That's a fair and reasonable assessment.  Acute choice of analogy, too, since brothers tend to have deeper bonds of affection and understanding for one another that neighbors and wider community members do not, and I believe that fits our two nations.
| One thing that bothered me was the way Canada got lambasted for not going to Iraq. |
|
That really isn't how we feel. Minister Chretien (sp?) had a few choice and indelicate things to say, though, which rather definitely pushed a few of our buttons down here. We're not used to that. In fact, we kind of take Canadian understanding of the American point of view for granted, that you at least UNDERSTAND where we are coming from and why, whether or not you agree. This time that wasn't the case, at least for your Prime Minister, and that set a number of things into motion. We also find ourselves in a rather distressing spat with France, and that is bleeding over onto third parties.
| Canada was not convinced there was a threat in Iraq and certainly no imminent threat, so we wanted to give it more time. |
|
And that is a valid point of view. However, what is the point of giving more time? In case there is a hope of peaceful resolution. Yet where was the hope? There was no hope. Saddam attacked his neighbors every time he thought he had enough strength to win. He broke every treaty he signed, most importantly the cease fire with the coalition that kicked him out of Kuwait. His word was not worth the toilet paper it came on.
Could we "contain" him? Let him behave as he pleased within his own country so long as he did not send his armies, missiles and weapons against other nations? Prior to Sept 11 01, we accepted that policy. In the wake of that event, we in the USA required more assurances from Saddam. The POSSIBILITY of him being able to pass off NBC weaponry to terrorists was a threat we could not abide. We HAD TO HAVE complete assurances from him that this would not happen, in the form of his total compliance with the 1991 cease fire in which he agreed to surrender all his NBC weapons and programs.
Nothing short of a full assurance in that department was going to suffice any more. And so we worked through the UN to give him one last chance. This was a chance for him to come clean and meet our needs for assurance and security, and he CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY chose to play his old tricks and games, and not act in good faith to meet his obligations.
Where was the hope that he would ever comply? How many years worth of second, third and sixteenth chances would be enough?
That other nations do not see it this way baffles us to no end. A minority in our country don't see it this way, either, but they are blinded by politics. How can you not accept that we HAD TO HAVE a higher level of security assurances in the post 9-11 world? To expect us to try to contain Saddam's weapons technology was to expect too much from our intelligence capability. The CIA is not god. Our intelligence, in fact, is in disarray, and we've known this PAINFULLY from the moment the planes started slamming into buildings. Yet the rest of the world seems (to us) to be sticking its head in the sand and wanting to pretend nothing has changed. Well... everything has changed, for us.
| We got accused of not being there to support the USA. |
|
Indeed. But it is crunch time for us, and as you say, you did not agree with our assessment of the danger levels. It's not in either of our interests to let this disagreement redefine our relationship, but you still don't seem to understand how life has changed for us, and where our concerns and priorities now lie.
| Also, to this day I hear stuff in the US press about how the USA is fighting terrorism alone. |
|
Our press is so totally free, we have ended up with a situation where those drawn to serve as journalists, by and large, are liberal activist "I want to change the world" types. I do not believe this is by design, but the fact is, the press does not always accurately portray the whole story of American viewpoint. A practiced eye should look past our press, if you want to get an accurate picture. That's hard to do from a distance, so I would not blame anybody for not being able to do it.
| That really irks us, because we WERE there with you in Afghanistan. We believed in that threat. |
|
And we appreciate your support there. But 9-11 has stirred us up. Pandora is out of the box and won't be put back in. Some of our innocence is gone for good. Technology has marched forward, and so has warfare. Just as the American Revolution changed warfare by making guerilla war and insurgency a viable force, and the US Civil War ended the dominance of cavalry, and the Great War in Europe, the war to end all wars, brought the machine gun, tank and airplane to the battlefield, so now the terrorists have changed the face of warfare again. No longer armies on the battlefield, but agents in the streets, among us, aiming to hit the softest targets with the biggest available weapons they can manage to smuggle into position. It is a new day, and I'm sorry, but we must respond to the threats as WE see them, not wait for your understanding to catch up, for you to agree to what we see and how we choose to respond.
Those of us who are responsible do not blame you. We understand. But some among us are hotheads, and some are quick to point fingers when they have no business doing so. We are ALL disappointed that you are not fully in tune with us at a time when we most need you, but it would be stupid to alienate you just because you are not willing to give all the help we ask for.
| When you went to Iraq, we didn't oppose you, but we didn't join you because |
|
We're not kidding in our assessment of seeing no bystanders or neutral parties in this conflict. Think back to WW II. The Roman Catholic Church adopted a neutral stance. It was under the gun of Hitler and Mussolini, for starters, and with no means to defend itself, cannot be blamed for choosing survival over conviction. Yet the fact remains, choosing to remain neutral is not always virtuous. If one side in a conflict is so bankrupt of character, so vile in its behavior, so flagrant in its contempt for human rights, so untrustworthy as to render its own word worthless because it has broken every agreement it has signed... To choose neutrality in that situation says a great deal. To us, at least.
And yet even then, sometimes it is just not your fight. That is how the USA felt about "Europe's wars" in the early 20th century. It seemed to us that Europe was such a hotbed of differences, there was nothing we could do but let them play out. We were an ocean away, with no understanding of the details of the various disputes. If we had tried to get involved, we would only have been burnt for stepping in the middle of what was none of our business. Only when OUR survival was put at stake by the Japanese attack on us did we finally wake up and respond to Hitler, although to our credit, FDR saw that coming and had prepared us for it as best he could.
Things look differently when the threat comes to your own doorstep.
| we didn't believe the threat. We did however take over some of your load in Afghanistan |
|
And for that, some among us have not been gracious enough. What can I say? We are not all of one mind amongst ourselves. Not of all of us even know or care what is going on. Those of us who do tend to be the only ones who bother to vote, though, so you should never confuse the buzz in our media and culture with the smaller portion of our country who actually drive the policy.
| We also commited financial aid in rebuilding Iraq right from the beginning. |
|
So you did. It may not be fair from us toward you, but those remarks by Chretien still linger in our minds. It seems not all of your people speak with the same mind, either. There do seem to be some in Canada who are in total lockstep with the French position that the USA is the real threat, and that the proper course for the world is to forge a new Euro-centric political alliance to stand in opposition to anything and everything we desire, on the principle that we MUST be kept in check or we will turn into a rabid monster and dominate the world. We roll our eyes at that. Surely people are smarter and wiser than to believe that, but apparently it has gained traction and is now a widely held view in Europe. And to be perfectly frank, we're not entirely confident that Canada won't be signing on to this notion. You seem to be flirting with it, at least. That is hurting our relationship more than you seem to realize. I only hope this trend is halted soon.
| We got almost nothing but critism for our stance on Iraq, yet not too long before that Canada suffered it's first casualties of war since Korea |
|
While responding to our call for help, no less. Yes, no doubt we are underinformed about your concerns and the impact all of this is having on you. Please forgive us. We're still scrambling to cover our exposed rear end from 9-11. You cannot overstate how badly we got caught with our pants down, nor should you underestimate our degree of vulnerability, nor the determination of our new enemies. This is NOT business as usual. These are difficult years.
| Obviously it was an accident, but those casualties were also inflicted by the USA. |
|
And somebody screwed something up badly. I know you don't expect that from us. Around the world, we seem to have more of a reputation, across many fronts, than we deserve, on both ends of it. Our strengths are overestimated, our vulnerabilities underestimated.
If we didn't really need you, though, we wouldn't be asking. Surely you must know that. How often have we ever asked these things from you? Does it not go without saying, we're in deeper trouble in some regards than we've been in for over half a century?
We do not feel as if you've abandoned us. We do feel as if you are not taking this with sufficient gravity. We believe that because we're looking at the same data and you don't see the threat. How can you not see the threat?? That's mind boggling. (Forgive me. No insult intended).
| I'm sure we're not the only country helping in this regard, but the US keep reporting how they do it all themselves. |
|
The USA is the most narcissistic culture on the planet. Well, maybe second, behind the French. Maybe. A case could be made either way, I think. Still, we don't have the Soviets to contend with any more. Now it's Russia and a bunch of little republics. Still a big deal, but a very changed situation. So who do we look to? Who are are concerned about accounting for in every policy decision we make? Nobody. Not at this point, at least. And yet that is not reality for the rest of the world, all of whom must in some regard account for us in most of their decisions. Our culture, our markets, our trends, our armies, the dominance of our language on the internet, through commerce, you name it. That we do not reciprocate this focus seems to be coming across as arrogance. What should we do about that? I don't have an answer. There are some down sides to being the biggest fish in the pond. 
Do we say we do it all ourselves? Yes. Some of that is pure narcissism, and it is faulty. Some of that is partisan politics, and it is up to you to sort that out by being well informed, if you have the interest. Some of it is bona fide sense of growing isolationism, since even our best friends are NOT "getting it" about how much 9-11 has affected us and changed our destiny, our priorities, perhaps even our identity.
We worry a lot about Europe. A lot. How did the cultural gap between us grow so large? It all seems to about Israel. We maintain support for Israel, to be the friend to them we have promised. We do not "remain neutral" in a fight we do not see AS even. Both sides do wrong things, surely, and for that both must be held accountable, but how Europe can view targetting terrorists (as Israel does in going after Hamas etc) as "no better than" targetting random civilians (as the terrorists do) is beyond baffling. There is no virtue in remaining neutral when one side fights dirtier than the other. And we will not let the radical Muslims who openly declare their intent to destroy Israel, to have their way. So we have supplied Israel the means to defend herself (just as we have done for the Saudis, the Egyptians and many others, include all of free Europe) and for that, we are hated by the Arab extremists. HATED. Hated beyond measure.
Why then does Europe (in general) treat Israel unfairly? Why do they legitimize (by not condemning) the terrorist tactics of certain Palestinian groups? It seems to me, personally, that many people and many cultures have lost the sense that there is such a thing any more as right and wrong. Nothing can be condemed as wrong. Everything is "OK" if looked at from the "right" point of view. Bah to that.
Some of us in the States fear a return of antisemitism as the defining standard of Europe. The growing influx and influence of Muslims in Europe seems to be the catalyst, but we do not fear them directly. Rather, we fear that they may give cover for a rising tide of inherent antisemitism that has been hiding in European closets for half a century, and that because we in the USA have been the one stalwart, unwavering and ever present friend to Israel all this time, that we are being caught up in this swirl and painted by the same sensibility. That, at least, is what we fear. Europe has, lately, done nothing at all to assuage this fear, and instead done plenty to confirm it.
Thus when we speak of "doing it all ourselves", that is because we actually FEEL isolated more and more as time goes by. And if the price of Europe's good will is to cave to their sentiments and abandon Israel, we will not do it.
The UN has how many seats for the Jews? And how many for the Americans? Combined, we have two, between us. How many seats for Europe? One for each nation, tiny or medium or miniscule. One for each Arab state, one for each African state. One for Canada, one for China, one for Japan. Hmm. Something seems amiss with this distribution. If not for the security council veto, the entire system would long since have been discarded, but no, because each of the Big Five can stop any measure they please, if they deem it worth the cost to do so, the UN limps on in its broken state.
Does the UN have an antisemitic bias? Can that question even be asked objectively? The USA helped charter the UN, and we host it. We would love for it to carry out its intended functions, but in many ways it simply cannot. It is not well enough designed to do so. Thus we have lost faith in it. And the world is not yet ready to try again, so there is no sense tearing it down now, either. It does many things right, and that is better than nothing. But there are many who would turn the UN into a mechanism for blocking any and all American interests, and we are not appeciative of that, let me tell you.
| Heck, Australia even went with you to fight in Iraq and the press still says they are fighting alone. |
|
THAT one lies solely at the feet of our liberal politicians, the Democratic Party. They are the ones who keep repeating the line "unilateral action" despite the fact that we had over thirty nations in the fight, and three major combat partners who had significant numbers of their troops in the fighting (UK, Australia, Poland).
But because we did not have the support of France, Germany and Russia, some declare that we did not have a "legitimate coalition", as if any action not including those three countries could not, by definition, be authentically international. I find that position to be enormously insulting to our friends who did join us, especially the UK, Austrilia, Poland, Spain, Canada, Italy, and Jordan, plus a long list of the rest who did contribute.
Yet the liberals are in the minority position on this one, within our borders. And it is ONLY they who are spouting this "unilateral" line and insulting everybody except France, Germany and Russia. I'm sorry for that, but they are free to say what they will, and our mostly-liberal press spins the story.
| This thread is probably too heavy, let's get back to talking about aliens. |
|
If you wish. It's your house. But if we must, we'll just move the discussion to the RB thread, where our folks won't have a problem intermixing gaming talk with political debate. Up to you. I promise to keep it civil, and frankly, I'm INTERESTED in what Canadians have to say in regard to these issues. But I will cease talking about them here if you wish.
| We're also a country that subcontiously desires recognition from the USA. |
|
Perhaps so. You really shouldn't, though. Our opinion means squat. Seriously. Nothing we can say will help you. If we were to "feed" a "hunger" for recognition, it could only end badly. Outside sources of validation become insatiable. If someone craving praise, attention or recognition gets some, they will want more, naturally. But the hunger grows while the supply runs its course, and it can only end badly, with hurt feelings, when the inevitable moment comes when you need more than we can give, and then you resent us for not giving what you think you need.
Recognition comes from within. Americans understand that. We do not see it as arrogant that we do not seek recognition from others. Rather, we understand that in the end, our sense of value can only be sustained if it comes from within. And we do not hunger for it, or resent others if they do not behave as we expect, do not give us enough attention.
Desiring attention is almost a childlike state, where a youngin seeks ever more love and esteem from parents, because they are not yet mature enough to supply their own, internally. I must tell you, we do NOT view Canadians or Canada or its culture in that light. We don't view any first or second world country that way, and for third world nations, we long for them to reach a point where they have their act together enough not to remain in that state. Parenting is hard work. So is policing. We don't want to be anybody's parent.
In a sense, it is truly an honor that you value us and our attention enough to put any importance at all on what we think. But... there are other ways to honor us, and for us to honor you. Dare I say, healthier ways.
| When Canada is mentioned in US movies or TV the country smiles, whether it is positive or not! |
|
Seriously. Stop. There are better measures of what we think of you, and how much we care.
There's an old saying. "You wouldn't care so much about what we think of you if you realized how rarely we do." It's not meant to be offputting, but only to realize that folks everywhere are generally occupied by the concerns of their own lives. Attention flows outward in ever widening circles, to family, job, social groups, community, county, state or province, nation... Takes a long time and a lot of circles to get to other nations, and this is even more true in a "big" country (population and diversity wise) like the USA. There are so many competing interests to grab our attention, you are lucky we know where you are on the globe! And in fact, I'm sorry to say, too many of us don't even know that! 
But it doesn't matter. Or at least, it shouldn't.
| Americans are very much fire and motion... Canadians are more like... a glacier I think. |
|
I don't believe it is this simple. I know there is fire in Canadians, and there is plenty of glacier in America. Folks everywhere live about the same: we eat, work, sleep, play, think, feel, learn, and live. The rest is details. There is a lot of variance in the details, and in the perceptions, the understanding, the way we put meaning to it all. But in terms of the way we live, day to day, I think there is more similarity between Canadians and Americans than there is between either of our our people and any other people on the planet. We are both colonial nations, isolated from the old world by oceans. The rest of the west is suffused with "latino" influences, the combination of native americans (Aztecs, etc) with Spanish explorers and conquistadors. Up here, we have mostly English and French influences, so we are not like the rest of the Americas. Yet we are not like the old world, or Africa, and we are both a bit different from Australia, though that would be the next closest to us both.
With so much in common, we can't help but be so much alike in the big details. What differences we have are not in how we live, but how we organize ourselves and relate to other nations. Only there are we strikingly different, in the ways we've already agreed. Only there does the "Americans are Fiery, Canadians are Glacial" analogy apply.
- Sirian
         
| |
|
|
|
Good grief, Sirian...how many words were in that post? 
     
| |
|
|
|
Uh-Oh! 
Better watch my back in here!
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#165
by Citizen Paguma - 2/11/2004 9:27:51 AM
| Minister Chretien (sp?) had a few choice and indelicate things to say, |
|
Actually, come to think of it can you tell me what you think he said? I heard this before from Americans, and to be honest, I'm not sure what they're talking about.
The only thing I know he (Prime Minister Chretien) said was that during a meeting discussing the economies of the G7, he critized Bush for running a very large deficit. Very poor timing for doing so, since the spending was of course finance the war(s).
Certainly this is not what all the fuss is about?
There was a MP in his government who called President Bush a moron, and although he did not condone it, he refused to fire her. I hope that's not what this is about either. She was an insignficant member of parliament, equivalent to a common congressman in the USA. Trust me, your congressmen have said much worse. My personal favorite was when Jessie Helms recommended aiming your nuclear weapons at Canada when we were being difficult in some trade negotiations.
When on a cruise in Northern Europe last year, I was confronted by an American who was very rude, and taking it out on my because our country wasn't supporting the USA in Iraq. He said Chretien called Bush a war criminal. That was just untrue. I'm happy to report that most of the Americans on that cruise were very friendly to my wife and me. It was just that one particular couple. When told about the story, another couple from Cleveland offered to throw them off the boat.
Anyway, so what were these comments that were offensive?
Keep in mind Chretien is a spoiled, senile, old man who can'topen his mouth without putting his foot in it, so it doesn't surprise me if he did, I just don't know what it was.
There was a time a few years ago he went to the middle east and started talking in all the countries. I thought he was going to start a new war with all his stupid comments!
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
-Jean Chretien
 
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#173
by Citizen Sirian - 2/11/2004 6:12:04 PM
| Actually, come to think of it can you tell me what you think he said? I heard this before from Americans, and to be honest, I'm not sure what they're talking about. |
|
I can't provide you a single quote to fulfill your request because the issue fully develops only in a wider context. That is, the accumulated and combined impact of remarks (and policy decisions) over the entire course of the Iraq issue has had an effect that cannot be summed up or epitomized by one remark. The problem runs much deeper than that. We seem to have a fundamental rift in our view of the world, a cultural and philosophical rift, and arguing over the wording of a quote or three cannot hope to address that.
Nevertheless, I will try. I searched for half an hour for Chretien's remarks about the Iraq issue that I had in mind, and I could not find them in that amount of time. I did find remarks from the same time frame which illustrate my point, though. Here they are:
 Link
If you read that, then we can discuss what it means, and I will try to "connect the dots" for you, as this is but one dot in a larger picture.
To further help develop that picture, let me also point you to two editorials turned up in my search, which appear to have been written by Canadians, forwarding their opinions relative to this issue. These should not be read as anything other than what they are, editorials, but they seem to be typical of what my perception of the majority view is among Canadians and Europeans. And this is all relative to the souring of relations between America and Canada, thus more of the "dots" to be connected on the issue, if we are to explore it.
Link
Link
Let me know if/when you are ready to continue.
- Sirian
| |
|
#174
by Citizen Paguma - 2/11/2004 6:38:53 PM
First off, don't get me wrong. I have no intention of defneding Chretien! I am so happy that he is finally gone!
| Nevertheless, I will try. I searched for half an hour for Chretien's remarks about the Iraq issue that I had in mind, and I could not find them in that amount of time. I did find remarks from the same time frame which illustrate my point, though. Here they are: Link |
|
Actually I think he was misquoted in this one. If I remmeber the quote correctly, and maybe I don't. He didn't single out the US, he said the "West", and by that, he meant Canada as well. Actually looking over the link your provided the parts in quotes clearly state "The West" and not "selfishness of the United States and the West. " as mentioned elsewhere in the story. That's a deceptive story. This whole thing is taken out of context. He was suggesting the West should try to be more sensitve.
| To further help develop that picture, let me also point you to two editorials turned up in my search, which appear to have been written by Canadians, forwarding their opinions relative to this issue. These should not be read as anything other than what they are, editorials, but they seem to be typical of what my perception of the majority view is among Canadians and Europeans. And this is all relative to the souring of relations between America and Canada, thus more of the "dots" to be connected on the issue, if we are to explore it. |
|
Ah, but did you not say yourself that your press states stuff that does necessarily represent the view of your country or people? Certainly that has to be a two way street.
Actually looking at these two sources, that's some pretty poor links. They aren't even respected journalist sites. That being said, I think I could find you plenty of editorials that would support your statements. I'm not denying that.
My only point was, I don't think Chretien has said that much negative about the USA. I think he's got a raw deal. I can't believe I'm saying that, since I've wanted to boot that guy from power for the past 7 years!
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
