Canada / U.S. relations

RobertDyck · 2007-02-16 13:34:35

[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/3882575p-4490081c.html]Bush calls for all-out effort to defeat Taliban
Doesn't mention current Canadian, Dutch roles[/url]

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush called for an all-out allied effort Thursday to defeat the Taliban but angered some in Canada by failing to mention its role in the deadly southern part of Afghanistan.
Bush singled out for praise countries that have recently pledged extra forces or equipment as a spring offensive looms -- countries like Norway, Britain, Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Greece and Iceland.
He didn't talk about Canada or the Netherlands, which already have big commitments in Afghanistan and are fighting in the most dangerous areas.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-16 14:47:02

[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/3882575p-4490081c.html]Bush calls for all-out effort to defeat Taliban
Doesn't mention current Canadian, Dutch roles[/url]
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush called for an all-out allied effort Thursday to defeat the Taliban but angered some in Canada by failing to mention its role in the deadly southern part of Afghanistan.
Bush singled out for praise countries that have recently pledged extra forces or equipment as a spring offensive looms -- countries like Norway, Britain, Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Greece and Iceland.
He didn't talk about Canada or the Netherlands, which already have big commitments in Afghanistan and are fighting in the most dangerous areas.

Well, since Canada already had big commitments in Afghanistan, maybe he decided to ask other countries which were less committend to make further contributions.

Palomar · 2007-02-17 06:40:49

[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/3882575p-4490081c.html]Bush calls for all-out effort to defeat Taliban
Doesn't mention current Canadian, Dutch roles[/url]
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush called for an all-out allied effort Thursday to defeat the Taliban but angered some in Canada by failing to mention its role in the deadly southern part of Afghanistan.
Bush singled out for praise countries that have recently pledged extra forces or equipment as a spring offensive looms -- countries like Norway, Britain, Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Greece and Iceland.
He didn't talk about Canada or the Netherlands, which already have big commitments in Afghanistan and are fighting in the most dangerous areas.

Hi Robert: Canadian anger in this regard (Netherlands too) is totally understandable. I've been under the impression (could be my fault, as I don't always pay really close attention to politics) that the USA is mostly "going it alone" in Afghanistan. Some of that is doubtless propoganda, too.

It's wrong to not acknowledge everyone (praise), especially in this context!

Long live the land of Hayden Christensen!

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-17 10:13:04

[url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/3882575p-4490081c.html]Bush calls for all-out effort to defeat Taliban
Doesn't mention current Canadian, Dutch roles[/url]
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush called for an all-out allied effort Thursday to defeat the Taliban but angered some in Canada by failing to mention its role in the deadly southern part of Afghanistan.
Bush singled out for praise countries that have recently pledged extra forces or equipment as a spring offensive looms -- countries like Norway, Britain, Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Greece and Iceland.
He didn't talk about Canada or the Netherlands, which already have big commitments in Afghanistan and are fighting in the most dangerous areas.
Hi Robert: Canadian anger in this regard (Netherlands too) is totally understandable. I've been under the impression (could be my fault, as I don't always pay really close attention to politics) that the USA is mostly "going it alone" in Afghanistan. Some of that is doubtless propoganda, too.
It's wrong to not acknowledge everyone (praise), especially in this context!
Long live the land of Hayden Christensen!

Well, he was asking for extra troops and he was praising those countries that provided extra troops. So where's the beef? Someone always has to gripe about something the US is doing, and I get tired of it. Complaint complaint complaint. The United States does alot of things without getting praise for its actions, we're trying to stabilize the middle east, we're trying to fight terrorism, and what do we get for our efforts? Criticism, get called imperialists, and people say we like occupying countries that do nothing but cost us money. People accuse us of making huge profits off of oil due to our involvement in Iraq, those same people accuse us of spending too much on the War. If the War was profitable and we we're plundering the countryside with our occupation, the War would pay for itself, it does not. And we have to suffer through the villiafying and demonizing of our leader, who does not deserve it, we have a biased left-wing press that always reports the war with an agenda of undermining our efforts, so it only reports negative things and suppresses positive news. Very little of what we do has anything to do with the praise we get for it. Canada should stop acting so spoiled, and do what right because it benefits the World, not because they receive praise for it.

No one ever praises us for sparing the lives of so many civilians in the countries that host terrorists that we are fighting. The expectations of us in the Arab World are impossible to meet. Arabs make lousy allies too, as they always change sides, sometimes they cooperate, and sometimes they help the terrorists.

Probably George Bush simply forgot to mention it, that's all. I think he meant to praise those countries that were adding more troops, rather than mention evey country that was maintaining the same level of troops rather than reducing them.

The point is to fight terrorists that threaten us all. By so acting Canadians make their own citizens safer, whether they receive praise form our President should hardly matter at all. Hardly anyone ever praises him for fighting terrorism, he gets very little international recognition for making the World safer, and a whole lot of criticism. People expect impossible things of the United States, they make the rules of engagement so strict that it becomes impossible to fight the enemy, so in effect they are rooting for the terrorists, even as the terrorists try to kill them.

I've heard warnings from various people predicting in 2001 that fighting terrorism was bound to be unpopular, lots of people it seems has their own favorite kinds of terrorists. I think terrorism is the problem and people who support terrorism, for whatever reason, are evil. If we are to fight terrorism, we should fight all terrorism, we should not negotiate with terrorists, we should not provide safe havens for them, we should do nothing but our level best to try to exterminate them until they are completely gone from the world, no matter what the cost.

RobertDyck · 2007-02-17 10:26:38

Actually, Canada after 9/11 Canada sent everything we had into Afghanistan. There are certain international commitments for peacekeeping such as Cyprus, we have to maintain a contingent at home for homeland defence, but everything available was sent into Afghanistan. That's one reason we didn't participate in Iraq, there was nothing left. Our forces are in the south where the hard fighting is. In fact, soldiers have been transferred from the navy and support services into infantry because we don't have enough for what we're doing there. Recently navy commanders complained and refused to send a frigate on patrol, or send a destroyer to a joint US/German/Canadian training exercise in Canadian waters because their budget was cut back. The navy's budget was cut 10% to fund our effort in Afghanistan. The navy commander actually had the gall to make his announcement to the media. Canada sent our tanks and artillery to Afghanistan, the first time Canadian tanks have been used in combat since World War 2. We're all-in and we're taking casualties. The military is recruiting, there are TV recruiting ads and they're playing on science fiction shows. Nations actively participating in Afghanistan are Canada, Netherlands, Britain, and the US. Within Canada it's seen that we are the ones carrying the brunt of the war, the US is focussing their troops in Iraq. Truth is all four nations are participating, but if you look at the media it appears we're running it with just a little help from the other three. Canadian public response has a mixture of scorn for getting us into what is rapidly becoming a copy of the quagmire in Iraq, and scorn for weak performance. Yesterday's political cartoon showed an oil pipeline guarded by a cardboard cut-out of Dudley Do-Right with two Taliban carrying dynamite saying something like "Oo, I guess this foils our devious plot." The Canadian way is to be polite, courteous, considerate, respectful, diplomatic, humble and meek; but if force is required be fast, firm, and effective. During World War 2 we recruited 1.1 million solders despite the fact we only had 12 million population at that time. We can be strong when necessary, but it's not our way to drag out active conflict as long as it has in Afghanistan.

At one particular point Canadian troops had located Osama bin Laden and Mullah someone-or-other in Tora Bora, circled troops but didn't go in. Instead we asked the US to send their troops so they would get the credit. This is similar to the liberation of Paris in World War 2; a US regiment had effectively liberated Paris but rather than going in to complete the task they circled and waited 3 days while General de Gaulle went in to "liberate" Paris. Similarly in Afghanistan, Canada circled and waited 3 days for US troops to go in and capture Osama bin Laden. But 3 days is a long time now. During the wait, a helicopter from Pakistan came in to rescue Osama and the Mullah. A guy I talked with just last night was highly critical of Canadian troops for letting a helicopter get in. I think if the US is going to dick around like that, waste time rather than striking quickly, then we shouldn't try a coordinated effort. I think we should have captured Osama ourselves, then handed him over to US authorities in a big media event. But as the guy I talked to last night said, this would have resulted in people attacking Canada; better to let the US take the credit and blame. I see a pattern in all this: Canada responded to the FLQ crisis quickly, 85 days from the first terrorist attack until it was all over. President Bush was informed just 10 hours after 9/11 that al Qaeda was guilty, but didn't even admit to the press he knew until 90 days after the attack. We found Osama in Tora Bora but US troops waited so long that Osama got away before they got there. The US announced a raid of 10,000 troops into the mountains of Afghanistan but most of those "troops" were support technicians, not soldiers, and the announcement was made to the world (including al Qaeda) 2 weeks before the offensive, plenty of time for them to get out. It's time for Canada to stop messing around, clean up and get out. The only question is how to do that.

Stéphane Dion, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, is now talking about a Martial Plan for Afghanistan. He also wants to close the Pakistan border to prevent al Qaeda and Taliban forces from going back and forth. Michael Ignatieff wanted a stronger military offensive against the Taliban; he was the second place contender for leadership of the Liberal party. Many voters in Canada are uncomfortable with targeting the Taliban, it has become a controversy, but everyone wants al Qaeda taken out.

Given the mess we're in and the sacrifices we've made, I expect some thanks from the US government.

Palomar · 2007-02-17 11:06:15

This is quite an intense discussion.

Canadian way is to be polite, courteous, considerate, respectful, diplomatic, humble and meek;

I'd like to visit Canada. Have been there as a small child; remember none of it of course. Would like to tour it, particularly central and eastern regions.

but if force is required be fast, firm, and effective.

I agree on fast/firm/effective (if force is required). A former NM member advocated the very same thing, instead of dwadling and mucking around.

Given the mess we're in and the sacrifices we've made, I expect some thanks from the US government.

Agreed.

Hey, have I mentioned that I think Hayden Christensen is an absolute doll?

Oh. :shock: I have? Sorry...

RobertDyck · 2007-02-17 15:56:41

General Rick Hillier, top general of the Canadian military, described the period of budget cuts to the military that began in 1994 as the "decade of darkness." Liberals were elected into government from October 25 1993 through January 23 2006. Although he didn't name the Liberals directly, this comment is seen as a political attack on the Liberal party and inappropriate for a military officer. We had such a federal deficit that economists world-wide called Canada an honorary member of the third world. We had to make hard decisions to reverse the deficit and reduce the debt. The Conservative party promised in 1984 to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and reduce taxes, but after 2 full terms they increased the deficit, doubled the debt, and increased taxes. Some hard decisions were necessary to clean up the budget mess; the Conservatives proved incapable of making the hard decisions, the Liberals succeeded. Spending in every part of the budget was cut, it's inappropriate for General Hillier to complain that his budget was also cut. Military spending had increased during the last year and a half of the Liberal government, under Prime Minister Paul Martin, but I still think we have to be frugal.

General Hillier's comment has left me feeling rather hawkish and pissed-off this weekend.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-17 17:38:48

Given the mess we're in and the sacrifices we've made, I expect some thanks from the US government.

When your government thanks us for all our sacrifices in Iraq. Liberals in the West like to pretend that its two wars when its actually one. Say were chasing some terrorists and he crosses the border into Iraq. The liberals would say, "No we can't follow him, because that's the Iraq War, not the War on terrorism, so therefore Congress would tie our hands so we could not go after them.

Canada is a big boy, if it sends troops somewhere, that's because its in its best interest. Canadians have made sacrifices, and so have American troops, troops that have rarely received praise for their sacrifices. No, the press wants to make them all out like they were bullies that enjoy torturing people, that we go around flushing Korans down toilets, and that it is cruel and inhuman to do so. Oh and when someone shoots at us from a mosque, were not suppose to fire back lest we damage some sacred building, so our soldiers are then supposed to take bullets without firing back and we fail to do so, we're called occupiers.

So George Bush has failed to mention Canada, with all the bad blood that has gone on between our two countries, are you so surprised? The US Government views the War on Terror as one war, we don't seperate into quadrants and say there is one war here and another war there, the same terrorists move from place to place, so why shouldn't we?

If someone gut punches us and then helps us back up afterwards, we may forget to say thank you every once in a while. It is a minor thing, why do you want to make a tempest in a teapot? Our soldiers do what they do because it needs doing, we don't do it for praise from the World Community, we do it for our own security. There are bad guys out there that need to be eliminated, whether we receive praise for it or condemnation.

RobertDyck · 2007-02-17 19:41:55

No, the war in Iraq was a stupid idea from the beginning. It was over in 1991, Saddam Hussein never supported al Qaeda; in fact al Qaeda considered Hussein's regime to be an enemy. Al Qaeda attacked the US, not some nebulous "terrorist" threat. Their attack was a terrorist attack, but it was one specific enemy. We are proceeding with the war against your real enemy, not some mess that George W. should never have gotten you into in the first place. "Gut punch?" No, it was support; just because we use rational thought does not mean we "gut punched" anyone. If you're worried about "gut punches" then talk to your own government about the Softwood Lumber crisis. The US still hasn't complied with the NAFTA dispute resolution board decision. That is one hell of a "gut punch" against Canada. We're still sent our full military support to Afghanistan despite that "gut punch". And now the US federal government is trying to take Canadian sovereign territory in the arctic. But we are stalwart, continuing our effort in Afghanistan.

You may not understand this, but our effort in Afghanistan is support of our ally, not anything for ourselves. We don't act solely in self interest, we aren't that self-centered, we actually support our allies.

Actually, "occupation" is one worry about Canada's effort in Afghanistan. It is becoming that, so we really have to re-examine our participation.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-18 08:52:23

Terrorists are your enemy too. The question is whether or not you're going to contribute to your own defense. Do you think the typicall Arab terrorist can tell the difference between a Canadian and a US citizen? To somebody who doesn't speak English or speak English very well, it is very hard to tell the Difference between a US Citizen and a Canadian.

We are talking about defending Western Civilization here, and Canada is a part of Western Civilization. Do you cherish your rights to freedom of speech, and freedom of religion? Well Al Qaeda is at war with those freedoms everywhere, not just in the United States. The liberals have a "Get Bush" mentality lately, and they seem to rank everything in the field of politics based on the negative consequences it does to Bush and nothing else matter to them. Liberals in my country and liberals in yours all determine their policy over whether it does damage to the Bush Administration, so they won't support anything the Bush Administration supports simply because it is the Bush Administration. If the Bush Administration wanted to give $100 billion to Canada with no strings attached, there'd be protests in the streets of Ottawa simply because the Bush Administration will be seen as behind it. The liberal media has started a Bush demonization campaign that has taken on a life of its own, there was even a movie that was started in Canada that features a Bush Assassination and a US Government over reaction to it, and naturally the guy caught was innocent while the real culprit escaped. Sounds to me like a prejudicial film.

I'll bet you, alot of people who say they hate Bush don't even know why they do. George Bush is probably the most reviled President in US history all because of the left-wing near monopoly in the media, while their are some people who should be reviled, that go unnoticed, because all the attention is artificially focused on George Bush by the Left-Wing Media. I'm not sure how the left-wing got their monopoly, but I think it started in the Universities. Those hippie war protestors in the 1960s and 1970s stuck around the college campuses and became professors, maybe the KGB had a hand in it, I'm sure they took over a number of colleges judging by some of the rhetoric that comes out of them. I think these left-wing professors took over the journalism schools and made sure no conservatives became college proffessors in Journalism, and they then proceeded to brainwash college students, who then became reporters for newspapers, and news programs and editorialists, and together as they came of age, they presented a biased picture of the Bush administration, emphasising negative news over positive to a greater degree with the Republicans over Democrats, and they spread an anti-American opinion through aout the World to give the Bush administration further trouble. It was largely the left-wing news media that was responsible for the Democratic landslide in Congress, as they took a mediocre war, and made it seem as the worst military disaster in US history, and it is not. 3,100 US casualities over 6 years is not even close, but the media shunned direct comparisons with World War II or the Civil War, as that would shatter the illusion they were trying to present, they focused on its length exclusively, they tried to emphasize the "longness" of the War and why the War was taking so long, as if all wars are supposed to be the "smash and grab" variety that are over in an afternoon. You know we can't always adhere to the "Grenada standard", that is just send in the Marines, kick in the doors and the regime collapses. Sometimes the Enemy is a little tougher, and victory requires patience. The Cold War required patience, and so does this one.

RobertDyck · 2007-02-18 10:25:10

Your enemy is not the Arab world, your enemy is not "terrorism", your enemy is only the organization that attacked on September 11, 2001, causing the death of over 3,000 Americans and destroying the World Trade Towers and damaging the Pentagon.

I am in a rare position for a Canadian; I was an immigrant living in the United States during the campaign for the year 2000 Presidential election. The lady I dated at the time tried to get me involved in the presidential election rather than Canadian politics because she wanted me to stay in the U.S. with her. I looked at the presidential candidates at the time, not as an outsider but as a U.S. resident evaluating who I want to run the country I live in. I had to tell her I couldn't because the only competent candidate just dropped out. Senator John McCain may have some views I disagree with, but he's competent. I felt all the other candidates were not competent. I don't have an opinion of John Kerry because I didn't live in the U.S. during the 2004 election. I keep stressing that an outsider should not meddle in a country's internal politics, that means I shouldn't meddle in U.S. politics either. Canada is in a unique position in this regard because the U.S. has so much influence over Canada, consequently most Canadians feel they have a right to an opinion over U.S. politics; however I was a resident of the U.S. during the year 2000 presidential election. Voters in the U.S. didn't know what George W. was really like in year 2000, he kept claiming he could be bipartisan and get congressmen of both parties working together. Sounds nice but reality has been the greatest polarization in remembered U.S. history. Although U.S. voters can say they didn't know what he was really like in year 2000, they knew in 2004; there's no excuse for re-electing him.

I have several specific complaints about George W. Bush:
• he mishandled the economy. I worked for Canadian company in 2001 that sold primarily to American companies. Our customers dried up because the American economy tanked in February 2001. That's before 9/11, immediately after George W's swearing in.
• mishandled 9/11. The enemy is al Qaeda, not some nebulous "war on terrorism". Taliban said they would hand over al Qaeda, but demanded proof that they're guilty. George W. showed the proof to everyone but Taliban, and invaded Afghanistan. Would they have refused to hand over al Qaeda anyway? We'll never know, but his actions pissed-off the entire Arab world.
• invasion of Iraq. Iraq was an enemy of al Qaeda, why would you attack the enemy of your enemy? Al Qaeda couldn't possibly hope to posses the type of military resources the U.S. used to attack Iraq; George W. effectively acted as al Qaeda's ally. Iraq did not harbour any terrorists before the invasion, they do now.
• wasting $80 billion on ballistic missile defence. Who is the enemy it's supposed to defend against? It's way too small to defend against Russia, and tests showed it only works 1/3 of the time. The 10 missiles could defend against 3 incoming missiles. The only potential enemy on the Pacific that has or could acquire in the near future ICBMs is North Korea. China has 12 ICBMs, each with one nuclear warhead, so George W. spent more money for 10 additional defence missiles in Alaska and 20 in California, bringing the total to 40. That means it can now defend against both North Korea and China. That price is higher than a manned mission to Mars, is it worth it? Is an attack from either country likely? I don't think so.
• threatening to invade Iran and North Korea
• refusing NATO's offer of help, pissing-off France and Germany
• the Patriot Act
• torturing prisoners at Guantánamo and Abu Grebe
• building a "Berlin Wall" on the Canada/U.S. border
• requiring passports to cross the Canada/U.S. border
• challenging Canada's sovereignty over the Canadian arctic
• refusing to comply with the NAFTA dispute resolution board decision regarding softwood lumber
• blaming Canada for mad-cow disease, closing the border to beef

Tom, your obsession over invasion and military force, your obsession over one single national leader with authority over the military and using that military as his basis of power, tells me you really don't want to live in a democracy. You would be happier living in a military dictatorship.

::Edit:: Spelling corrections.

dicktice · 2007-02-18 20:42:18

It'd be interesting to read Tom's reaction to each of the above complaints against Bush.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-19 03:24:46

Your enemy is not the Arab world, your enemy is not "terrorism", your enemy is only the organization that attacked on September 11, 2001, causing the death of over 3,000 Americans and destroying the World Trade Towers and damaging the Pentagon.

Are you equating the Arab World with terrorism? I would like very much for the Arab world to reject terrorism totally, and without exception. They always say the Islam is a peaceful religion, so why don't they prove it, and stop objecting to us fighting terrorism. Don't they realize that Islamic terrorists drag there religion's reputation through the mud, and they leave an impression that Islam is a Terrorist Religion, and the majority of Muslims do nothing to fight that impression, and when they object to Americans and Israelis fighting terrorism, they leave the impression that they are on the side of terrorism, they should be on the fore front of the war on terrorism, not on the back benches. All the terrorists do to us is kill us, what they do to Islam is even worse, they give the impression to nonmuslims that Islam is an evil religion. If they don't like that reputation of Islam as the Terrorist Religion, they should dispell that notion by fighting it without exception.

As for the second part, yes indeed terrorism is my enemy, I would like to see it all abolished. I don't approve of bombing abortion clinics, I don't approve of the IRA, I don't approve of the PLO, or Hezbollah, or Iran, or anyone else who supports terrorism without exception. There are no good terrorists, there are no terrorists who are my friends, and lets not change the mean of terrorism or quibble about its definition, I know what it is, so don't try to obfuscate the issue by being vague about the definition. Terrorism is a tool of the weak against the strong, its not my fault they are weak, nor is it the fault of any of their victims. The objective of the strong is to wipe out terrorism and make it very dangerous to support a terrorist. We should hunt down the terrorists without mercy, and make terrorism a counter productive too that only brings devastation and retaliatory destruction down on their heads. There should be no negotiation with terrorists or their supporters, the objective should be simply to eliminate them.

I am in a rare position for a Canadian; I was an immigrant living in the United States during the campaign for the year 2000 Presidential election. The lady I dated at the time tried to get me involved in the presidential election rather than Canadian politics because she wanted me to stay in the U.S. with her. I looked at the presidential candidates at the time, not as an outsider but as a U.S. resident evaluating who I want to run the country I live in. I had to tell her I couldn't because the only competent candidate just dropped out. Senator John McCain may have some views I disagree with, but he's competent. I felt all the other candidates were not competent. I don't have an opinion of John Kerry because I didn't live in the U.S. during the 2004 election. I keep stressing that an outsider should not meddle in a country's internal politics, that means I shouldn't meddle in U.S. politics either. Canada is in a unique position in this regard because the U.S. has so much influence over Canada, consequently most Canadians feel they have a right to an opinion over U.S. politics; however I was a resident of the U.S. during the year 2000 presidential election. Voters in the U.S. didn't know what George W. was really like in year 2000, he kept claiming he could be bipartisan and get congressmen of both parties working together. Sounds nice but reality has been the greatest polarization in remembered U.S. history.

How do you know the Democrats weren't just trying to get revenge for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and George Bush just happened to be tha handy Republican target at the time? Its also not George Bush's fault that the voting was so close in 2000, George Bush was doing everything he could to get the election decided in his favor as were the Democrats doing to get it decided in their favor. I'm sure if George Bush had a choice, he would have been elected by a more comfortable unassailable magin, but he wasn't, so the Democrats begin the exercise of blaming George Bush for the circumstances he couldn't control. Just like in a trial, each side uses every advantage the law allows, everybody is self-interested. Where the Democrats go overboard is in their demonization of George Bush, they do everything they can to thwart George Bush, even if that hurts the United States, they want the US to lose the War in Iraq because of that, not because there is anything in particular about the war, but because it is George Bush's War and in that they want him to fail. So why can't you just be honest about that, instead of making up bogus excuses about why the war is wrong? Do you really care that much about Saddam Hussein?

Although U.S. voters can say they didn't know what he was really like in year 2000, they knew in 2004; there's no excuse for re-electing him.

Why what did he do in that time? if he was Robert Dole, you'd have the same problem with him because he is a Republican and you'd want revenge for what happened to Bill Clinton, or for him not ceding the results to Al Gore simply because he is the Democrat in the race, and the election results were close. if it was any Republican you could name, the Democrats would still want revenge, and he would fall within the crosshairs of the Democratic Party, its all about who wins, and that's all they care about. The Country is just the backdrop for the struggle between two Parties, and they want their party to Win and the Republicans to lose, and that's what its all about in their minds.

I have several specific complaints about George W. Bush:
• he mishandled the economy. I worked for Canadian company in 2001 that sold primarily to American companies. Our customers dried up because the American economy tanked in February 2001. That's before 9/11, immediately after George W's swearing in.

My point exactly, what could George Bush have done in one month that could have caused the economy to tank so quickly? George Bush can't raise taxes by himself, and he didn't. Actually it was less than one month as George Bush only became President on January 20th, so there was 11 days between his inauguration and February, I don't think the economy has ever been so responsive to any single leader of the United States. Most of the things we measure in the economy are lagging indicators. most of the statistics collected in February would have been for January, and for most of January Bill Clinton was President.

• mishandled 9/11. The enemy is al Qaeda, not some nebulous "war on terrorism".

So you are saying there are some terrorists, you think the US ought to be friends with? Do you think terrorists might make valuable allies perhaps? Perhaps they would be great help in fighting the Mafia for instance. Terrorists are restrained by miranda rights, they can just kill people that the Government wants eliminated, is that what your thinking of?

Taliban said they would hand over al Qaeda, but demanded proof that they're guilty. George W. showed the proof to everyone but Taliban, and invaded Afghanistan.

You can always adjust your standard of proof high enough so it can't be proved according to those standards. How do you know aliens didn't replicate those 19 people down to the molecular level and then program them to fly those airplanes into buildings. No way could the US government prove that did not happen, so by someone's definition of "reasonable doubt" that could simply be an excuse not to hand over the terrorists. Also didn't the Taliban use terrorism against Afghan women, murdering them in fact if they showed too much skin or attended school or held certain jobs. I guess you are blind to injustice, and unsympathetic to someone bringing justice to some places if the motivations are wrong. If someone gives away money to the poor because he thinks the act will make him rich, you'd want him to stop right away and take back the money, because he acted with misguided motivations and his generosity was not heart felt, for example.

Would they have refused to hand over al Qaeda anyway? We'll never know, but his actions pissed-off the entire Arab world.

Why should it? Islam is a peaceful religion, I can't conceive of any peaceful religion having any sympathy for terrorists or any objection to anybody fighting this evil.

• invasion of Iraq. Iraq was an enemy of al Qaeda, why would you attack the enemy of your enemy?

Simplistic reasoning. Why indeed should we have attacked Nazi Germany, since it was fighting communism, and that Ideology threatend to overthrow Capitalism and spread revolution to the west, the enemy of our enemy indeed. Just because two people are you enemy, doesn't mean that they are friends with each other, the same applies for nations. I don't give a squat for Shiites or Sunnis, they may be enemies of each other, but both have taken turns supporting terrorism against Americans, so I don't see the enemy of my enemy necessarily being my friend, their divisions are simply a weakness that can be exploited due to their advertion to working together. I don't understand the origin of their centuries old conflict either, it all seems to be about some trivia that happened long ago, and that serves as excuses for the leaders of one faction to gain power at the expense of another.

Al Qaeda couldn't possibly hope to posses the type of military resources the U.S. used to attack Iraq; George W. effective acted as al Qaeda's ally. Iraq did not harbour any terrorists before the invasion, they do now.

Thinly veiled excuses for opposing George Bush and rationalizations for opposing the War, I'm sure if it was Bill Clinton's baby, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
I admire alot about liberal goal, but lately they have been George Bush "Attack Happy". I would appreciate national health care, but not at the price of my country losing a War. Liberals don't realize how much of their important agenda they undermine by being George Bus attack Happy and anti-American. I am not one of the haves, in fact I am a "have not", but I am a patriotic American citizen, and I want my country to win its Wars no matter who's President. The liberals have lost me with all there America bashing and anti-Bush monomania, its not all about the power and who has it, its about what positive things they can do for the country, not in what ways they can sabotage the country to make George Bush look bad. I'd like to see more solutions coming from the Democrats and less National sabotage. If they have a better way to fight terrorists, lets hear it; if they don't, then I don't have a reason to vote for them. If they can't solve the nation's problems and can only criticise what's wrong then there is no reason for me to vote for them. At least the Republicans are trying to win and looking for ways to solve problems. The Democrats are simply looking for problems and they say that is sufficient reason for me to vote for them instead of the Republicans, I say it is not.

I can easily say, "We have not won the War in Iraq, so vote for me." I can say, "fighting the terrorists only makes them stronger, so I say don't fight the terrorists, and if elected I will not, so vote for me."

That's all the democrats do, they promise not to do something, and they figure not doing something is a job well done, well I disagree.

• wasting $80 billion on ballistic missile defence. Who is the enemy it's supposed to defend against?

"The enemy who has just launched nuclear missiles at us. Quick, we have 30 minutes to develop the missile defense to intercept those warhead right now!"

If someone went up to the Navy Department in 1920 and said, "We need to build better defenses for Pearl Harbor, because on December 7, 1941, the Japanese are going to launch a surprise attack at 9 a.m. that Sunday morning, you have 20 years to get prepared, so you'd better get cracking." Is that guy going to be believed? If that guy could correctly foretell the future and correctly identify they enemy that is going to attack, would it have done any good in convincing the top brass? Likewise, if I were to correctly identify the enemy who was going to attack with nuclear missiles 20 years in the future, would it do any good in my argument with you? I think not.

If in 1920 somebody suggested that the US Army develop a new tank, and some General asked, "But who are we going to attack with it? ... You mean you don't know? Well if you can't identify the enemy we're going to face, then I can see no reason to spend the money to build a tank."

It's way to small to defend against Russia, and tests showed it only works 1/3 of the time.

And no amount of R&D is ever going to improve its performance, so the whole thing is one giant waste of money!

The V2 rocket was a waste of money, it could never reach the moon, it couldn't even reach orbit, I don't know why the United States spent so much time and money studying them, surely we'd have nothing to learn from them that would be any use in the space race. Do you get the drift.

Do you expect the US government to whip something up that is the perfect defense for any amount of money? Those expectations you have are unrealistic, so any amount of money spend by the Defense Department for any reason is a waste of money for that reason. Those are seld-defeating arguments you are using.

The 10 missiles could defend against 3 incoming missiles. The only potential enemy on the Pacific that has or could acquire in the near future ICBMs is North Korea. China has 12 ICBMs, each with one nuclear warhead, so George W. spent more money for 10 additional defence missiles in Alaska and 20 in California, bringing the total to 40. That means it can now defend against both North Korea and China. That price is higher than a manned mission to Mars, is it worth it? Is an attack from either country isn't likely? I don't think so.

You're in no position to predict the future. I'd think Id rather have a missile defense than your reassurances that those two countries are not going to attack.

The first fighter planes could barely fly, and were hardly very effective in destroying targets on the ground, waste of money eh? That money would have been better spent building an F16 right off the bat, that way we could save money developing all those intermediate stages toward the F16 which weren't as effective as an F16 fighter. Same argument you use for missile defense.

• threatening to invade Iran and North Korea

Who threatened to invade Iran and North Korea?
I don't think anyone threatened to invade either country. Besides if we did threaten, we'd lose our element of surprise if and when the time actually came to invade Iran or North Korea. We don't want the Iranian Army just sitting their waiting for our soldiers to come, do we?

• refusing NATO's offer of help, pissing-off France and Germany

I don't ever recall France or Germany ever offering to help us invade Iran or North Korea

• the Patriot Act

What's the matter? Don't you believe in Patriotism?

• torturing prisoners at Guantánamo and Abu Grebe

"Oh no! Don't flush that Koran down the Toilet! Oh please, anything but that!"

• building a "Berlin Wall" on the Canada/U.S. border

There is no wall between the US and Canada.

• requiring passports to cross the Canada/U.S. border

Give us a reason not to require identification from Canadians and nonCanadians crossing the border into the US. If you cross the border and say your an American Citizen and you proceed into the voting booth to Vote for President, we can't just take your word for it. You might as well say its unfair to require identification before purchasing an alchoholic drink.

• challenging Canada's sovereignty over the Canadian arctic

Ok, name a piece of Canadian territory that the US currently occupies.

• refusing to comply with the NAFTA dispute resolution board decision regarding softwood lumber

Can't comment on something I know little about, but I know your just looking for something to complain about rather than a resolution to this problem, so I can't really say whether I trust you as an unbiased source of information. You obviously want to have something to complain about the US for. I on the other hand have no problem with Canada except for people like you who are always looking for something the US has done to complain about.

• blaming Canada for mad-cow disease, closing the border to beef

Hardly matters whether Canada is to blame or not, if Cattle move freely across the border, then the disease will spread more freely, its a simply physical fact, and borders are natural places to stop diseases from spreading. Preventing the spread of diseases is hardly about assigning guilt or blame, its about stopping the disease period!

Tom, your obsession over invasion and military force, your obsession over one single national leader with authority over the military and using that military as his basis of power, tells me you really don't want to live in a democracy. You would be happier living in a military dictatorship.

Seems its more your obsession than mine, I just want my country to win, and I know a Congress is hardly an inspiring leadership for winning a war, and indeed winning a War doesn't seem to be their intention either. I want the War to end, I certainly don't want it to go on forever, but I haven't given up all hope of victory like the Democrats have so easily done. I have not given up all hope of victory so much that I want to sabotage all remaining chances of victory like the democrats are trying to do. In fact if the main complaint is the War's length rather than its casuality count, I would think adding more troops would be more likely to shorten the war than not adding troops, unless the Democrats think that the only way for the War to end is by the US losing it. I'm sorry, I'm not so down on the US as you Liberals are.

RobertDyck · 2007-02-20 01:04:08

Don't twist my words, I didn't equate the Arab world with terrorism. What I said is the enemy who attacked on 9/11 was al Qaeda; no one else. That's the enemy, not a concept, not a tactic. If you blame the entire Arab world you'll only create new enemies. If you want to further debate that point, we have other threads devoted to it; this is Canada/U.S. relations.

In case you didn't notice, I'm also critical of Bill Clinton. I could give specifics but he's gone now. The current batch of Democrats appear to be doing a good job so far. It may be politically correct to emphasize the positive and try to smooth relations between our nations. If you think I'm picking on Republicans, I have to point out that I thought Senator McCain was a good one; he's Republican. Then again, he spoke in favour of the war in Iraq. (Sigh) Oh well, there are Democrats in Congress now.

Most of your arguments are inane, but I will respond to a few.

I don't ever recall France or Germany ever offering to help us invade Iran or North Korea

First, I just said invading either Iran or North Korea after the invasion of Iraq would be worse than Iraq. Second, France and Germany aren't helping much in Afghanistan, are they? That's the point. Al Qaeda attacked the U.S., NATO offered to fulfill its function by aiding one of its members, but George W. refused and said he would dictate to then when and how they would participate. That lost their support. Actually France did participate in the initial invasion of Afghanistan, and I believe Canadian aircraft are based out of an airbase in Germany, but how much fighting are they doing in Afghanistan? Not much, and that's the point. Piss them off and you loose support. If anyone attacks the U.S. in the future they may not assist at all if American leaders continue to condescend.

What's the matter? Don't you believe in Patriotism?

The Patriot Act has nothing what so ever to do with patriotism.

There is no wall between the US and Canada.

You're wrong. The Bush administration has built armed guard towers along the Canada/U.S. border, is patrolling with over a hundred UAVs, installed seismic sensors to detect tunnelling, placed 50 calibre machine guns on coast guard vessels on the Great Lakes, and did actually build a fence along the border near Vancouver. This is a copy of the Berlin Wall; the concrete wall was a short segment in the heart of the city, most of it was a guarded fence.

Ok, name a piece of Canadian territory that the US currently occupies.

This is Canada's northern border, and has been since 1927. Notice the entire North West Passage is within Canada, it isn't international waters. As of 1895 the border was just 12 miles off the coast of our northern islands, but did include all the waters between islands. That means the North West Passage has been Canadian sovereign territory since 1895. If American officials want to take it, they're more than a century too late.

Softwood: This isn't just a petty complaint point; you don't realize how badly Free Trade has been run. We've been bullied and beaten-up for our lunch money. Free Trade has lost many Canadian businesses but as soon as a Canadian business succeeds the American competition complains to their congressmen and they violate Free Trade. So when a Canadian business is forced out by competition it's Ok, but if an American business looses to a superior Canadian one it's somehow Ok? No way, it's either free both ways or not at all. The NAFTA decision was that Canada had to change some if it's practices, but the U.S. had to immediately cease all duties, repay Canada for all duties collected, not establish any limits on quantity of lumber exported to the U.S., and no minimum price. The market is open, companies are free to compete. The U.S. federal government has refused all points: all duties are still in place, they haven't repaid anything, they established a maximum on lumber export, and a minimum price. Considering entire neighbourhoods in New Orleans haven't even been cleaned up much less rebuilt, one would think you would want vast quantities of inexpensive high-quality lumber. The really ironic thing is limits on Canadian lumber did not increase U.S. domestic production, instead imports from Europe increased. The U.S. construction industry lobby wants the limits on Canadian lumber ended, the U.S. lumber industry wants further limits on Canadian lumber. The U.S. consumer is getting screwed by a misguided attempt to increase lumber profits. And Canada gets screwed too.

Beef: scientists said the matter was under control and the border could be opened just months after the incident occurred. It's now years and the border still isn't open. The beef industry was integrated before there were U.S. states or Canadian provinces in the west, before there was a separation of Canada vs. U.S., trade in breeding stock is vital for the health of the industry in both Countries and slaughter facilities have been completely integrated. Messing with this in a misguided attempt to prop-up U.S. ranchers is just harming everyone.

You keep talking as if criticizing the current U.S. government and criticizing the hawks in Washington is an attack on America as a whole. Actually I think America was a wonderful country, unfortunately it's on a slow but steady decline. Freedom and democracy are being eroded at an ever increasing rate in favour of an authoritarian regime. I recommend you read the book "1984" by George Orwell. It was written in 1948, the date of the fictional world was formed by reversing the last two digits. It describes a totalitarian nightmare world, drawn from the fear of fascism in Italy and Nazi Germany of World War 2. The author intended it as a warning that unless citizens are ever vigilant it can occur anywhere, including your country. In the last quarter of 1983 the media was worried it would come true on new years day, but it didn't. Technologies weren't ready in 1984, but they are now. That book was recommended reading for all members of the Soviet government, they used it as a "how to" manual, but it is happening right here in North America right now. More so in the U.S., George W. is leading the way. We studied it in English class when I went to high school; I recommend you read it.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-20 08:31:43

I'm not too familiar with the timber industry, but some questions have to be asked:

What if an American company is tree farming, that is replacing the trees that it harvests and preserving the forests that it harvests from by removing only some of the more mature trees, and across the border there is a Canadian company that is clear cutting forests from a government owned forest at much less cost and leaving nothing but bare ground and soil erosion behind? Now the less environmentally friendly timber company complains about the tariffs that protect the more environmentally friendly lumber company and calls it protectionism. The American company says, without those tariffs the couldn't compete with that canadian company that is clear cutting its forests and wrecking environmental devastation. Since Canada has a lot of forests to clear cut, they have an economic advantage of over the company that is trying to preserve the environment as it harvests lumber, as it costs more to preserve the forest while extracting wood from it, than to cut the whole thing down.

An environmental regulation to prevent Canadian companies to force American lumber companies into the same sort of environmentally destructive timber harvesting practices in order to stay in business, is similar to tariffs on companies that use child laborers in factories. Now the question is, is it environmental regulation or protectionism.

If we dropped all tariffs and the Canadians started clear-cutting their forests, we'd have to do the same with our forests in order to stay in business, but maybe we don't want to clear cut our forests, because if we do that there'd be nothing left for future generations, so therefore, we'd want to protect companies that spend more to protect the environment so that they stay in business. We don't wantcompetition to dirve us into destructive practices do we? The same could be said of power generation. Some very cheap power plants can be made that don't use scrubbers and burn high sulfer coal, and thus export cheap electricity across the border. If that export goes unregulated, other power companies would be forced to build cheap environmentally unfriendly power generation stations to stay in business.

So how do you know the difference between Americans trying to protect their environment and Americans trying to preserve their jobs through protectionism, the tools we use are the same for both? How do we know that the American Labor Union leader standing next to Smoky the Bear and saying that we must preserve our environment from ruthless canadian compedators that clear cut their forests, is being honest about his true motives. The fact of the matter is, its very hard to tell what is being done in the name of the environment and what is being to to save American jobs in certain industries.

Also further north, the trees grow slower due to the shorter growing season. Protectionism might actually be protecting Canadian forests more, since the Canadian lumber companies may or may not be concerned about how fast the harvested lumber will replace themselves since there is plenty of forest to extract from.

Also the wall or border fortifications between Canada and the US are Hardly a "Berlin Wall", there aren't many Americans trying to escape from America to get into Canada and we aren't trying to stop them unless of course they are criminals trying to escape justice. Its also funny that we have people in the United States that say George Bush is soft on guarding the border while we have people like you saying he guards it too much. So which is it, it can't be both? We have 20 million illegal aliens running around in the United States and the INS is not doing much about it. I'd say the Bush Administration is actually being very permissive, and there are those border patroll agents who were arrested for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who crossed the border from Mexico, the border Patrol agents say they were only defending themselves and thought he had a gun, they asked not to be put in general population with other illegal alien inmates, but they were anyway and were beaten up.

So George Bush has one group of critics that say he is lax on border security and another group of critics that say he is too harsh, now how is he supposed to satisfy both groups at once? I don't think its possible. So no matter what he does, he's going to receive criticism form either you or somebody else.

RobertDyck · 2007-02-27 20:20:27

The lumber thing has two aspects from an American point of view:
1) American lumber companies want to eliminate competition. Specific accusations are merely excuses to establish protectionism. Rather lame when you realize that when protectionism did reduce Canadian imports, it was met with increased European imports rather than domestic production. The U.S. has a limited number of trees, not significant increase in production is possible.
2) High quality lumber at reduced prices places pressure on state governments to reduce their stumpage fees. That's the fee charged by state governments for lumber companies to cut trees on state owned land. They're using a bidding process to maximize stumpage fees, so it increases revenue to state governments. Pressure to reduce stumpage fees cuts state revenue.

Canada has more land area than the U.S., but only 1/10th the population. That should tell you that we have a lot more trees. Supply and demand dictate that the cost per tree must be lower. Each province runs its resources independently, just as each state down south. Although their policies are different, the general result is lower stumpage fees to cut trees on government owned land. As for private tree farms, there is no difference. British Columbia (one province) requires all lumber companies to replant on government land where they cut. Alberta didn't require that, they let lumber companies clear cut without replanting. That's the bad policy that had to change; one province was bad but at least one state did similar things. Even when cutting on government land, the stumpage fee (charge per tree stump) is less than 1% of the cost of finished lumber. The rest is processing and labour.

Border: stop treating Canada the same as Mexico. Canada is a modern industrialized first world nation. Mexico has a third world economy. You may have border security issues with Mexico, but Canadian citizens can get a better income flipping burgers at a fast food joint than an illegal job in the U.S.; in fact I think a welfare recipient gets more income than an illegal immigrant. If you want to do something about border security, require all employers in the U.S. to supply to the IRS a photo-copy of a new employee's Social Security card and some sort of identification: birth certificate, driver's license, or other. When I got a SS card in the U.S., they prominently stamped "not valid without INS approval" or something similar. "INS" means Immigration and Naturalization Service, the immigration department. So I need a work visa to get a job in the U.S. This is all you need; citizens from Canada will seek high paying jobs, not illegal jobs. Those high paying employers will declare salary expenses to the IRS, so jobs for people from Canada will be declared to the IRS. That means you just need to check paperwork to check for such an immigrant. Paper work, not armed security towers; why does this require explanation? Paper work is less expensive, so it saves you tax dollars as well as being more effective. All this comes from the fact Canada is not Mexico; Canada is a modern industrialized country. Duh!

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-02-28 01:11:31

It is interesting that you used the Berlin Wall analogy. What did it mean for the two Germanies when the Berlin Wall came down? Basically they eliminated that border, and one of the Germanies, a creation of Joseph Stalin, was absorbed into the other, and no one been guarding that imaginary border since. Now RobertDyck, you really have to ask yourself, do you really want the US/Canada Border to "disappear" like the one between East and West Germany? Wouldn't bother me in the least to be honest about it, but how would other Canadians feel about that? An international border means that the countries involved get to control it and regulate what and who passes through. If you don't like there to be an international border there, then fine remove it, but then someone's going to have to write a new Constitution to reflect this new geopolitical reality.

Protectionism protects producers, it doesn't do a thing for consumers, it just makes the things they buy more expensive. Producers are generally more organized than consumers, as the former is motivated to preserve their jobs, while the later is onloy motivated to save a few bucks. Politicians are often influenced more by producers than consumers. Producers by the way includes both the management and the labor unions. I think the labor unions would be more protectionist than the management as the later is always open to outsourcing into other countries where the labor is cheaper, profit can always be made in America or in some foreign country, it doesn't matter to the investors.

It is funny that you say, "1) American lumber companies want to eliminate competition." Is that something specific to only American lumber companies? I was wondering why you added that qualifier "American" rather than just saying, "Lumber companies want to reduce competition." I was wondering about that tendency of your to attribute negative qualities towards Americans specifically, as if it is only Americans that get greedy or want to protect their jobs. The truth is, if the Canadian companies were in America they would want the same thing American's do, namely reduced competition so they could earn more profits. The profit motive is universal regardless of one's nationality. Gasoline is more expensive in Canada for instance. What's wrong with a gasoline tanker truck, driving into Canada and selling gasoline to cars for a dollar less than a nearby Canadian gas station? Isn't that free market competition too. Canada has large oil reserves and it seems in spite of that gasoline in Canada is more expensive than it is in the USA, sounds to me that some people in Canada don't want the competition from people who pay lower gasoline taxes and therefore have a compedative advantage over Canadian gasoline stations. Yeah, why don't you go buy gasoline right out of a tanker truck with US license plates. Maybe he can't legally sell this gasoline to you in Canada, buy hey why should free commerce be impeded by regulation?

One thing I don't like about the left wing is their tendency to regulate every aspect of life, they tax and regulate everything they can get away with. Why for instance do police officers issue speeding tickets? Isn't getting killed enough deterrence? Why should people be more afrain of paying a fine and getting points off their driver's license than of getting killed on the highway. Some people want to regulate the use of electronic devices while crossing a street, they want to force your daughters to get innoculated for venerial disease when she is nine years old, the assumption being that all women will grow up to be prostitutes or loose women.

dicktice · 2007-03-06 19:00:08

Have you ever visited Canada, friend?

Palomar · 2007-03-07 08:18:09

I agree with Robert.

Canada is so far advanced beyond Mexico it should be apparent to most everyone. I live 50 miles north of the Mexican border; that's close enough.

The main issue is culture. The Canadian culture is one of cooperation. The Mexican culture is "macho one-upmanship King of the Hill"; they work against each other. I've seen this culture personally; it's no wonder they cannot get ahead.

Frankly I still think the Canadian border is being scrutinized and "treated equally" to that of Mexico's in order to avoid charges of racism. Of course those folks would like to see reverse-racism in full swing: Whitey must submit.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-07 08:52:03

I agree with Robert.
Canada is so far advanced beyond Mexico it should be apparent to most everyone. I live 50 miles north of the Mexican border; that's close enough.
The main issue is culture. The Canadian culture is one of cooperation. The Mexican culture is "macho one-upmanship King of the Hill"; they work against each other. I've seen this culture personally; it's no wonder they cannot get ahead.
Frankly I still think the Canadian border is being scrutinized and "treated equally" to that of Mexico's in order to avoid charges of racism. Of course those folks would like to see reverse-racism in full swing: Whitey must submit.

Why is it that every disgruntled minority "gets their own race" so they can make charges of racism? A Mexican is one of three possible races or combinations thereof, either he or she is white, black, or of asian descent, Native Americans came over from Asia during the last ice age, so they count as Asians.

So a white Mexican smuggles himself across the border, he is caught and deported, so he complains bitterly of racism against the "Mexican Race".

I wonder if there is a "Canadian Race" also, or do you have to be poor to qualify as a seperate race?

There are legitimate security issues, its not just "preventing Canadians from stealing our jobs". I think if those security issues could be met upon entry into Canada, they wouldn't have to be dealt with at the US/Canadian border, we would just have to get both governments to operate from the same page. We can't have a situation where for instance, the US considers Iran to be a terrorist state and gives all people from Iran extra scrutiny and Canada does not/

dicktice · 2007-03-07 09:44:03

You really are a wonder, Tom. Such garbage. I repeat: have you ever visited Canada?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-07 10:03:36

Yes, I saw both sides of Niagara Falls, and stayed in a Canadian Hotel once. The Canadian side was a town and the US side was a park. Canada and the US seem much alike, except for the political structures and the currency. As I said before, I'm not really worried about Canadians sneaking across the border and competing with me for my job and driving down wages. What I am worried about is the US government considering someone a threat and the Canadian government not seeing it and the US being right. I think if we can just coordinate our immigration and importation policies then we need not check the US/Canadian border, it would mean giving up soverignty on both sides though. National governments are always reluctant to cede national power. We would have to set up an agency that is answerable to both national governments with a shared power structure. I see no reason why this wouldn't work, but I want to make sure that no terrorists can get into Canada that would threaten US citizens, and I'm sure the Canadians would want to make sure of the same things for their citizens too before we open up the border for unlimited unregulated travel. I think my concerns on this matter are reasonable, and not "garbage". You want me to just wave my hands and ignore them, sorry but I can't. You want open borders between the US and Canada, then security concerns of both countries must be addressed first, that is the price, and I believe most Canadians would find that to be a reasonable request.

I think a veto system would work. You would have Canadian and US Immigration officials at every entry point into the US and Canada, each would have access to a data base from his government and each would have a veto on whether to let a prospective visitor or immigrant in. An external foreigner would need to get visa approval from both countries before he would be allowed into either. This would be a more restricive by default immigration policy. You would need Canadian officials at Kennedy Airport for example, and if the Canadian dosen't like somebidy coming through, he can send him back to his point of origin. Like wise a US agent would be stationed in Toronto, and if somebody coming into Canada looks to dangerous, he would get to refuse him entry into Canada. The FBI and the Canadian Police would also have to share databases so they can track down and apprehend wanted fugitives, and if someone commits a crime in the US that carries the Death Penalty, then Canada would have to hand him over if apprehended up there. Likewise if someone was evading Canadian taxes and is hiding out in the US, the US would hand him over to Canada, it wouldn't matter if he wasn't violating laws in the United States.

Canadians might not agree with some US laws, but if someone violates then in the US and then hides in Canada, then the Canadians would have to hand him over to face US justice, and it works the otherway too.

Palomar · 2007-03-07 13:12:46

I agree with Robert.
Canada is so far advanced beyond Mexico it should be apparent to most everyone. I live 50 miles north of the Mexican border; that's close enough.
The main issue is culture. The Canadian culture is one of cooperation. The Mexican culture is "macho one-upmanship King of the Hill"; they work against each other. I've seen this culture personally; it's no wonder they cannot get ahead.
Frankly I still think the Canadian border is being scrutinized and "treated equally" to that of Mexico's in order to avoid charges of racism. Of course those folks would like to see reverse-racism in full swing: Whitey must submit.
Why is it that every disgruntled minority "gets their own race" so they can make charges of racism? A Mexican is one of three possible races or combinations thereof, either he or she is white, black, or of asian descent, Native Americans came over from Asia during the last ice age, so they count as Asians.
So a white Mexican smuggles himself across the border, he is caught and deported, so he complains bitterly of racism against the "Mexican Race".
I wonder if there is a "Canadian Race" also, or do you have to be poor to qualify as a seperate race?

Oh, I quite agree with this. Besides, "Mexican" is a term of nationality...not race.

But to answer your question: Everyone with blue eyes of European extraction is inherently evil, didn't you know? All other peoples on Earth are absolute angels by comparison. Yep, there's a Nazi lurking somewhere deep inside ALL of our heads (never mind that I myself would have been deported and kicked into a Nazi crematory oven)...or so anti-white racists would have others believe.

An illegal immigrant should be deported for breaking the law, regardless of where they are from. Otherwise they're being given preferential treatment over folks standing in line...folks like my paternal grandfather who had to pass through Ellis Island.

dicktice · 2007-03-07 17:42:06

I know I'll be sorry for bringing this up, Tom, but think of the consequences to the tourist industry of across-the-border measures such as you suggest. In the European Union now, as you must be aware, one can go from one country to another with the same freedom as you can between your states, and we our provinces and territories. Besides, with the increasing risk of "home-grown terrorists" your police-state solution along our thousands of miles of sparcely populated border would be just as impossible to maintain as the Mexican wall scheme. I wonder if you know precisely what the actual threat is that your solution-looking-for-a-problem is meant to prevent? Would it be worth the cost in human and material terms for any security (from what?) gained.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-08 14:03:50

I know I'll be sorry for bringing this up, Tom, but think of the consequences to the tourist industry of across-the-border measures such as you suggest. In the European Union now, as you must be aware, one can go from one country to another with the same freedom as you can between your states, and we our provinces and territories. Besides, with the increasing risk of "home-grown terrorists" your police-state solution along our thousands of miles of sparcely populated border would be just as impossible to maintain as the Mexican wall scheme. I wonder if you know precisely what the actual threat is that your solution-looking-for-a-problem is meant to prevent? Would it be worth the cost in human and material terms for any security (from what?) gained.

Your 76 years old, so I don't think your too young to remember the 9/11 attack in New York.

What police state solution, all I suggested is that we guard our exterior outside border in exchange for opening up our interiour border between our two countries. If you want something, you have to give something up as well, its not just all about what you want.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2007-02-16 13:34:35

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#102 2007-02-16 14:47:02

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#103 2007-02-17 06:40:49

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#104 2007-02-17 10:13:04

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#105 2007-02-17 10:26:38

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#106 2007-02-17 11:06:15

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#107 2007-02-17 15:56:41

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#108 2007-02-17 17:38:48

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#109 2007-02-17 19:41:55

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#110 2007-02-18 08:52:23

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#111 2007-02-18 10:25:10

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#112 2007-02-18 20:42:18

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#113 2007-02-19 03:24:46

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#114 2007-02-20 01:04:08

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#115 2007-02-20 08:31:43

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#116 2007-02-27 20:20:27

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#117 2007-02-28 01:11:31

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#118 2007-03-06 19:00:08

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#119 2007-03-07 08:18:09

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#120 2007-03-07 08:52:03

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#121 2007-03-07 09:44:03

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#122 2007-03-07 10:03:36

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#123 2007-03-07 13:12:46

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#124 2007-03-07 17:42:06

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#125 2007-03-08 14:03:50

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Board footer