USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

Palomar · 2003-04-19 10:59:57

Dicktice in a different thread:

"Here is a little excerpt I copied from today's newspaper quoted from the American, Daniel Yankelovich' study:
"Canadians see themselves as part of the world. Americans see themselves as part of the United States.
"Canadians have a deeper sense of obligation towards other nations and feel more interdependence with them.
"While Americans prefer to excercise leadership in concert with allies, they feel their power buys them independence from world opinion."
I believe he has it right, because UN/USA conundrums of the last few months so obviously bear out his contentions...."

***

I certainly give dicktice the benefit of the doubt that he posted this quote with good intentions. I'd like to make some comments (in no particular order of importance).

First of all, I really dislike collectivist-oriented comments.

A few years ago I was in brief correspondence with a man from Canada. He made it clear that he had a problem with U.S. citizens referring to ourselves as "Americans," as though we intentionally mean to divorce all other folks living in the Americas from that word. I suggested that perhaps U.S. citizens call ourselves "Americans" because we are the only nation in the Americas to actually incorporate the word "America" in our nation's name...and obviously it's easier to simply say "I'm an American" than "I'm a United States citizen." He didn't agree with my opinion...no problem. But it did make me a bit paranoid about referring to myself as "an American," so I usually opt for "U.S. citizen."

I consider myself a U.S. citizen, yes; and I also consider myself as part of the world. It'd be crazy to consider otherwise.

When I was in college, most of my friends were foreigners come to study in the U.S. My closest friend was Soong, a journalist from Beijing China. He'd be approximately 50 years old now. Mitsuru of Japan, Jose from Mexico, Dorcas of China, Mita of Japan, and Shirley from India were part of this group. A professor at the college noticed how easily I moved within this circle of friends and how quickly I was accepted and befriended by foreigners, and suggested I seek a field of employ in that direction. My best friend back home was adopted from Korea, as a young girl -- Roberta (Ijun Park).

Flashforward 12 years and getting on the internet. I'm surprised at the animosity of many foreigners on the 'net (excluding the abundance of trolls). Suddenly, because I am a U.S. citizen, I am expected to know EVERYTHING about the world. If I don't know the official language of Brazil or the capitol of one of the 'Stans, I'm accused of being an ignorant, self-absorbed damned Yankee. It doesn't matter that I work 50 hours a week, have a husband and home to tend to, prepare meals and exercise regularly, and take some time out to indulge in reading...nope, apparently I'm supposed to be poring over atlases and news web sites all day long. How am I supposed to accomplish this? And would I be expected to know all of this information if I were Canadian? Or British? Probably not. Hmmmmm.

Regarding the call for boycotting French and German goods during the Iraqi war: I won't do it. They are entitled to not participate in the war and to take the stand they do.

On that note, however, I'm frequently perplexed and somewhat amused by a lone European voice in a crowd of Yankees (whether on Yahoo! or on a TV political program): No matter how many U.S. citizens are ::opposed:: to the war with Iraq (oftentimes the majority of the group), the European will seem to entirely miss that 80%+ of the U.S. citizens in said group are ::against:: the war, and will rant and rail against "you Americans." For instance, a few months ago a German national stood up on "Crossfire" and, though the majority of persons in the studio were opposed to the upcoming war, she challenged "all of you Americans" to "send the Statue of Liberty back to France" because of the disagreement between the two respective governments. Times like those I'm wondering, "Are you DEAF?" Or, if in a Yahoo! group/message board setting, "Can you READ?" All the U.S. citizens AGREEING with them doesn't seem to sink in. I don't understand it. I often see foreigners accusing Yankees what they themselves are guilty of: Bias, ignorance, etc. And isn't some of that simply human? Of course it is.

Well, got that off my chest.

--Cindy

George H · 2003-04-19 13:11:29

Well, you make good points Cindy. I'm from Canada btw. You outta ask that chick on your list, if she knows names of different capitols, hehe. And yeah if she thinks your stupid or something, then what's she doing on your list ?

If I never thought about the usa being the only country with the word America in it. Heh. And I'm glad to hear your not part of the boycott's, its really stupid. But I like Brie cheese too much, hehe. If somebody call's YOU ignorant, it'd be a real lie. :-)

@--}------
@--}-----

dicktice · 2003-04-19 13:38:24

Face it, Cindy: One would expect a power like the United States capable of more sensitivity to the image they impart to the World.
You, yourself aren't expected to "know everything" but your Government and international financial institutions are. Okay, you call yourselves Americans, instead of U.S. citizens, because it's convenient. On the other hand that Yankelovich-quote is from an American, and it's spot on: It's just the way we're taught.
The U.N. is organized to eventually rid the World of bias, but they must be stringently supported. And that means International Court of Law.
While we await the elimination of bias I hope we, who are aware of the need to propagate off the Earth, will nurture private space ventures while the old expertise lasts ... that is, before Homeland Security criminalizes such launch activities all over the World .

soph · 2003-04-19 14:02:16

dicktice, the UN is a hotbed of anti-American bias, as well. Your posts give the impression that France and Russia don't have an anti-American agenda, or the constant jousting over Palestine (however empty the so-called compassion is, I suspect its more of a push button).

There are politics on both sides. I hate how people throw out anything Bush says, but hold up things like the Amanpour interview as evidence of Chirac's nobility. I don't trust either one, really. What I am saying is treat them with equal skepticism. The US is not automatically bad, just as Europe is not automatically benign.

And the problem with the UN is that without American military backing, they have very little power. And when so many of the countries make it a point to rail against the US, that's a problem.

Hey, I think the UN is very important, but too much burden is put on the US to enforce the regulations, and no country has more demanded of it. There has to be some reciprocation. And the UN has got to stop being a convention center for domestic showcasing of politics. For both sides of the political spectrum.

Phobos · 2003-04-19 14:03:08

The U.N. is organized to eventually rid the World of bias, but they must be stringently supported. And that means International Court of Law.

Depends on the type of laws they intend to enforce and how they plan to enforce them. Being that UN officials, at least the American ones, aren't on my ballot I'm hesitant to just hand them blatant power to rule as they please. If they aren't directly accountable to the people then I don't want to be subject to this so-called world court. I think justices, i.e. Supreme Court judges and the like, should be voted on by the people not appointed by politicians.

soph · 2003-04-19 14:04:09

Heh, boycotting French and German products would be pretty hard-any time I can get my hands on jaegar schnitzel or liverwurst, I'm in food heaven.

Palomar · 2003-04-19 14:16:14

Dicktice: "Face it, Cindy: One would expect a power like the United States capable of more sensitivity to the image they impart to the World."

*I agree. By the way, just curious: I wonder if non-U.S. folks, generally speaking, considered the U.S. was more sensitive regarding our image to the world prior to the GW Bush Administration?

Dicktice: "You, yourself aren't expected to "know everything"..."

*I accept your opinion...but believe me, there are quite a few non-U.S. citizens out there on the internet who demand otherwise of me (in forthright terms). Of course, if I ignore them, then I'm "being arrogant." Geesh.

Dicktice: "... that is, before Homeland Security criminalizes such launch activities all over the World"

*Probably my view of the "Department of Homeland Security" pretty much jibes with yours.

As an addendum of sorts (this came to mind while I've been working on the computer), to further delineate my puzzlement regarding some attitudes toward U.S. citizens by certain non-citizens: An acquaintance of mine named Katja, a German national (she resides here on a Green Card; her husband is a U.S. citizen), went home to visit roughly 5 months ago. My husband and I crossed paths with her in February, in a local store. Although she is still a citizen of Germany and has no voting rights in the U.S.A. (obviously), she told us that most of her fellow German citizens were hostile to her, referring to President Bush as "your" President, put her on the hot seat and grilled her with all sorts of questions, etc., etc. Poor Katja! She had a very rough, unpleasant time and was glad to return to her home here.

I asked her, "Well don't they realize that Al Gore won the popular vote, which means more than half the nation voted for HIM?" No, apparently her German friends and acquaintances didn't understand this; Bush is in the White House, after all -- and look at the Mid-Term Elections!Apparently they consider since Bush is in the White House, ALL of the U.S.A. wanted him there and supports that outcome. I was flabberghasted. I told Katja, "Well, don't they understand that if I ::don't:: vote for someone -- which obviously means I don't endorse that individual -- that means I'm not accountable for them winning?" Apparently not! I listened very carefully to Katja, who is extremely fluent in English. She certainly made it sound as though her German friends consider all U.S. citizens guilty for Bush being in the White House, that we all wanted him there...even those of us who did not vote for him.

As far as I'm concerned, if I don't give my endorsement in a vote, I'm not accountable for the opponent being elected, if elected. A vote for someone is also a vote against someone else. But I guess Katja's kin and family don't see it that way. Another international communication gap -- great!

--Cindy

A.J.Armitage · 2003-04-19 14:17:40

On another forum a Canadian ranted about "Americans are arrogant, Americans are blah blah blah, and you shouldn't call yourselves "American" it arrogantly excludes Canadians, blah blah blah." If the very people complaining about it call us Americans, I say screw 'em.

BTW, "American" originally meant Native Americans, and the British started using it for us later. We didn't come up with it.

Anti-American twit mode: "What do you mean, 'U.S. citizen'? So citizens of the United States of Mexico don't count? How arrogant!!"

Palomar · 2003-04-19 14:29:04

The U.N. is organized to eventually rid the World of bias, but they must be stringently supported. And that means International Court of Law.
Depends on the type of laws they intend to enforce and how they plan to enforce them. Being that UN officials, at least the American ones, aren't on my ballot I'm hesitant to just hand them blatant power to rule as they please. If they aren't directly accountable to the people then I don't want to be subject to this so-called world court. I think justices, i.e. Supreme Court judges and the like, should be voted on by the people not appointed by politicians.

*Yes, Phobos!!

--Cindy

dicktice · 2003-04-19 15:56:14

Cindy: Speaking for myself, I really liked Clinton for his intelligence and sunny disposition ... and his likability on the part of the rest of the World--like Kennedy was, in Europe at least. His silly-buggers in the White House were as nothing, overseas. He'll still amount to something on the larger World Stage ... if the envious-Right allow him to continue paying off his debts by doing his own thing....
An' di'n't y'know, Cindy ... goils don' have'ta t'know stuff?
You think your Electorial College system is bad. Canada has had the same Prime Minister since 1992, and with his party in majority has had what amount to dictatorial powers over the nation. The Premiers of the provences are powerful in their own right, which tends to hold him back somewhat. But since he decided to step down in February, precipitating a national Parlementary election, he's been very effective as a lame duck ... the darling of most of the nation, for sticking to his pledge to support the U.N. to support a post-Saddam Iraq, you know, peacekeeping--what we're equipped to do. We have even less say than you as to who will run for the top job--the majority party decides. On the other hand, the ruling party can be voted out of office by the Parlement, on a moment's notice. Scandals and scams therefore are very quickly quashed, which explains why ours tend to be less corrupt on average than your politicians. (Nothing personal, folks ... we're just different--see?)
A.J.: I agree about being dubbed American ... but, while we have fun complaining it's like "being in bed with an elephant," there could be a little suppressed fear of takeover behind it, as well.
The U.N. and the E.U. are growing entities. Not "they" but "we" are growing together. This has never happened before, just as republics like the United States and Canada and Australia and New Zealand never happened before. I believe the U.S. suffers from lack-of-frontier-syndrome ... and the sooner they/you pull yer socks up, and start developing interplanetary space (as opposed to anti-ballistic missile space) the better you/we all will be off. When I think of the weapons budget in comparison with the (?) spacetravel budget ... the more I cringe.
Soph: My tastes in food tend more towards the Danish: weinerbrod, liverpaste, gorgonzola, smorbrod, aquavit (can't find the right letters, sorry) ... you know: European cuisine!

tim_perdue · 2003-04-19 16:29:16

I spend the better part of my day reading news from around the world and chatting with people about this sort of stuff.

If there is anything I've found it's that people are simplistic and easily manipulated by their governments, especially on nationalistic matters. That means people everywhere, Canadians, Mexicans, Eurotrash, USA, etc. The main problem in the US is that we are so far ahead of everyone else in terms of power, technology, and dominance, that by our very nature people are going to hate us. It's normal human jealousy and associated psychology.

Look at Canada for just a brief example. Here's a country with a huge trade surplus with the US, a free ride in terms of defense, and the US has never done a single thing to harm them. In exchange, we get endless invectives, hatred, and name-calling. Go figure.

Extend the view to france, europe in general, etc and you get the idea.

Look at the Kosovo conflict. Fully half of the world was condemning the US for doing nothing about the massacres, and then when we did go in, fully half the world was angry because we started a war.

Iraq: Many in Europe and the middle east say we support dictators, that sanctions are bad, etc. So if you try to remove a dictator and end sanctions, they're mad about that.

What's important is not necessarily paying attention to that, but doing what's right for *US*, and letting the cards fall where they may. Trying to win some sort of "popularity contest" is pointless, as it can never be achieved.

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-19 18:09:40

You hit it right on the head, Tim. Some people hate America no matter what, there's no sense trying to placate them.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-20 02:14:47

I think it's black and white arrogance like that which is more the cause of dislike in the US.

And, often times doing what's right for ?us? tends to make the whole mess worse.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-20 05:06:22

As most of you know, I'm not 'American' .. in any sense of the word. (The argument over who calls themselves American seems exceedingly puerile to me - just one more infantile example of anti-US belligerence.)
However, I do try to understand today's politics in some kind of historical perspective. I'm sure most US citizens don't appreciate that their country's dominance is a passing thing. They may be top dog now, but it won't last .. these things never do.
Those who indulge in the knee-jerk reaction of hating all things American, simply because America is the presently dominant power, are convinced that the future will be better once US power is broken. They imagine a peaceful world dominated by an egalitarian and just UN.
Maybe they're right ... but that's definitely NOT the way to bet! Human nature (however much the left denies its existence) will almost certainly ensure that selfish power struggles will continue into the future. When America is gone, some other entity will arise to fill her shoes. Power is an intoxicating drug that many, if not most, humans are all too easily attracted to, and addicted to.

What I don't think very many people understand is the relatively benign nature of the current US dominance. America, though patently imperfect, definitely does NOT deserve the levels of vilification she has been subjected to.
It's possible to work with America. She is amenable to negotiation and compromise. And, while capable of outright selfishness, she is simultaneously capable of acts of remarkable mercy, generosity and benevolence. America isn't just a faceless bureaucracy - she consists of the people of America .. the ordinary, decent and caring individuals who make up the great majority of her population.
I, for one, refuse to demonise these people who, on more than one occasion, have used their strength to uphold the traditions of freedom instigated in the old world of Europe. I don't kid myself for one moment that much, if not most, of the freedom I enjoy today I owe to the decency of the American people. When the chips were down - and I mean really down - the American people were there for my ancestors. As far as I'm concerned, they're my cousins.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, you should think carefully before opposing everything America says and does, as a matter of course. When the US ceases to be the predominant power, you may not get the world you think you're going to get!
There are some VERY bad people out there! ???

Palomar · 2003-04-20 07:54:36

Dicktice: "Speaking for myself, I really liked Clinton for his intelligence and sunny disposition ... and his likability on the part of the rest of the World--like Kennedy was, in Europe at least. His silly-buggers in the White House were as nothing, overseas. He'll still amount to something on the larger World Stage ... if the envious-Right allow him to continue paying off his debts by doing his own thing...."

*Speaking of the "Right," I've noticed that with the ascension of King George the W they've become very demanding and overbearing. One aspect of this which troubles me the most is the continuing rise of this insistence that everyone else (national or international) *must* see it their way, period. The more moderate conservatives/"Right" do demonstrate the desire and ability to compromise but, IMO, quite a bit of the "Right" are unwilling to compromise and are inflexible.

Dicktice: "An' di'n't y'know, Cindy ... goils don' have'ta t'know stuff?"

:::shakes head 'no' vigorously::: Not knowing stuff results in ignorance and dependence. Not wise.

This goil is something of a restless intellectual.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-04-20 18:46:38

Look at Canada for just a brief example. Here's a country with a huge trade surplus with the US, a free ride in terms of defense, and the US has never done a single thing to harm them. In exchange, we get endless invectives, hatred, and name-calling.

Canada is subject to continual attacks on any industry that succeeds with trade to the U.S. There are Canadian companies that have ceased to exist due to competition by American companies coming into Canada. The American government ignores these, but "has a cow" when the reverse happens.

Take the steel incident: one Canadian company noticed all U.S. and Canadian steel companies were using furnaces from World War 2, so they invested in new equipment to make steel that was both higher quality and lower cost to produce. They could sell their steel at a lower price per pound, make their loan payments and still have profit left over to pay their share holders. Isn't this the "American Way"? The American steel companies complained and insisted on trade barriers. The then bi-national free trade commission said this was normal competition so no barriers were permitted. Then a STATE court overruled the bi-national trade commission. How does a lower court overrule a higher court?

Canada's small east cost provinces depend on fishing. The Grand Banks have been fished for centuries, but modern technology is threatening that fishery with extinction. Canada imposed quotas to ensure fish populations increased instead of their continual decrease. Two U.S. fishing boats flagrantly violated those quotas; not all U.S. fishing boats, just 2 of them. The Canadian cost guard arrested them, but U.S. lawyers challenged Canada's ability to protect the fishery rather than supporting Canada's enforcement. This has resulted in such a threat to fishing populations that all fishing has had to be closed. This has harmed the fishing industry for both Canadian and U.S. fishermen who had fished the Grand Banks.

Then there was the softwood lumber dispute. State governments have failed to replant forests resulting in a shortage of trees for lumber companies. This has driven up the price lumber companies must pay to state governments for access to trees. The state governments get more money, does anyone see something here? Canada has more total land area than the U.S. but has roughly 1/10th the number of people. Can you see there will be more trees? That means lumber companies can be more selective to only cut the good trees, and the laws of supply and demand mean the price to access those trees will be lower. Canadian government regulations also require lumber companies to replant on the land they cut, but details vary between provinces. So this results in higher quality wood at lower stumpage fees. Then again, the majority of the cost of wood is the cost to harvest logs and process them into lumber, stumpage fees are the smallest portion of the cost. But the U.S. government is demanding Canada change its regulations to be a carbon-copy of the U.S. system.

Now there is a dispute regarding marketing boards. There is the accusation that grain and dairy products are unfairly subsidized. There is no subsidy, although there is a non-profit organization that purchases products from farmers and sells to food processing companies. The marketing boards also stabilize prices by purchasing from farmers above market price when prices are depressed, and below market price when prices are peaked. Any surplus is passed to farmers by increasing the commodity price paid to farmers. This means the marketing board can negotiate as equals with large multi-national food processing companies. The marketing boards do not receive any tax money; they are run as non-profit companies. If the U.S. government thinks they are such an advantage, then just establish marketing boards in the U.S.

So every time Canada does something that succeeds, there is a U.S. government official trying to squash it. Don't you think it is time to treat the NAFTA as a free trade agreement?

Regarding international affairs, Canada has put a lot of time and effort into engendering good will among the countries of the world. But the U.S. federal government keeps picking fights with 3rd world countries and demanding Canada join them. That is not the Canadian way. Canada will participate if one country invades another, but will not get involved with how a country chooses which regime will rule; that is an internal affair. Saddam Hussein is far from a saint, but it is an Iraqi matter to deal with him. Would you want France or Germany deciding that George W. Bush must go? The abnormalities in his election could justify ousting George W., but selecting a president is a U.S. matter, not for other countries to get involved with. Likewise, selecting a head of state is an Iraqi matter, not for the U.S. or Canada to get involved with.

If you are complaining that the Canadian military is too small, perhaps you should complain that the U.S. military is too large. Canada did have the 3rd largest navy at the end of World War 2; only the U.S. and Brittan had larger navies. Today Canada's navy is almost a joke. Yes, Canada has the best frigates in the world, but few of them and all other classes of ship are a joke. This is due to different priorities: Canada has an emphasis on participating as a member of a joint NATO force, not trying to go it alone; on peace keeping forces; and establishing good will so other countries will not want to attack. Perhaps the U.S. government should reconsider its policy of maintaining a military that is capable of unilaterally fighting two major theatre wars simultaneously. World War 2 isn't going to happen again, you won't have to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the same time, on your own. After all, the U.S. was not alone in World War 2, so why should the U.S. expect to fight such a double war alone in the future. Furthermore, conflicts today tend to be against 3rd world countries, not major industrial powers much less two different major industrial powers simultaneously. So rather than accusing Canada of getting "a free ride in terms of defence", get your own government to cut your military in half, or at least drastically reduce it.

Palomar · 2003-04-20 20:01:00

Would you want France or Germany deciding that George W. Bush must go? The abnormalities in his election could justify ousting George W.,

*I couldn't agree more. It's still "interesting" to me how the tally hassle in Tallahassee "worked" in Bush's favor (thanks Jeb, Supreme Court Puppets and FL Secretary of State!).

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-04-20 23:06:04

What a hilarious tirade!

Canada is tired of the constant wining coming from the U.S., accompanied by accusations that Canada is wining. Tim, I tried to explain the situation but if you can't say anything more intelligent than "hilarious tirade" then perhaps you should say nothing at all.

Canada's military is small because Canada does not measure its worth in terms of how many foreign civilians it can kill. Being an adult means getting along with your neighbours without constant fights. The community establishes police to punish those individuals who steal or bully. By the way, "bully" includes using force to make someone do something your way within their own borders. Rather than bragging about how much money you are spending on weapons to kill people, try focusing on real efforts to promote freedom. Anything imposed at the point of a gun is not freedom. By killing Iraqi citizens until they do things your way, you are not "liberating" Iraq.

By the way, Canada doesn't "dream" of becoming an independent nation; Canada has been an independent nation since it separated from Brittan in 1867. Notice Canada separated peacefully, not via a war of independence. The U.S. birth through war has something to do with its continuing obsession with weapons and violence.

Canada's "HUGE" trade surplus is recent, and probably temporary. It has something to do with Canada's slow but steady growth and the recent flagging economy in the U.S.; I wonder who is to blame for that economy? By the way, if Canada only "dreams" of being independent then why is its economy not going down with the U.S.? And the reason 90% of Canadians live close to the U.S. border is that Canadians live along the southern edge of the country where it's warm, the U.S. just happens to be along the southern border. If you can't understand that then spend a week in Iqaluit in January.

Canada and the U.S. are brothers. Both can benefit from each other, both can learn from the other. I could lecture on the need to respect other countries without sending the military, or how democracy means you won't always get your way in the UN, but I doubt I would get through. Perhaps one lesson is to focus on your economy and not war. Another is to stop meddling in other country's affairs to the point they feel it necessary to slam a plane into one of your buildings. Canada may be little brother to the U.S., but little brother has grown up and is tired of cleaning up the mess left by big brother: Canada was asked to clean up after the invasion of Granada, and now Iraq. Canadians know enough not to invade these countries, so why should we have to clean up afterward? Perhaps part of the lesson is to leave big brother to clean up his own mess.

Enough said. Before we get too far with this nationalistic silliness, remember that I am the one who wants to work with NASA. I am also the one who lived in Miami, Florida, during the last U.S. federal election. Perhaps we need to focus on Mars rather than throwing around accusations like Canada getting a free ride in terms of defence, or getting "invectives" from Canadians after the latest wining from the U.S. government about Canadian trade.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-21 04:02:09

I'm trying so hard not to get into this discussion, I think I'm doing good so far, though, with Robert's sensible comments.

Robert, wanna hear a Canadian song regarding Canadian ?violence??

It's cute, I think you'd like it. Go here. I recommend anyone who likes funny, witty music, to go download, it's lovely. Also, check out their other songs. They are one of my all times favorite bands. Canada rocks!

(Sorry for the semi-offtopic post, but you guys need to relax a bit!)

RobertDyck · 2003-04-21 08:14:06

Tim, Canada does have to put up with things like a California senator seriously raising the issue of sending the U.S. marines to invade Canada in order to force B.C. Hydro to sell electricity to California. Remember when B.C. Hydro put California on a "cash only" basis after it failed to pay its bills for several months? California started rolling blackouts when power was cut off. The problem was California failing to pay its bills, and the senate admitted they still didn't want to pay their bills after the rolling blackouts started. Luckily the rest of the senators did squash that motion, and I would like to think the U.S. federal government wouldn't listen to such a request, but the fact remains that one state senator did call for sending the U.S. marines to invade Canada. Do you think that doesn't go noticed? This does raise the question whether our neighbour can be trusted.

After September 11, 2001, there was a joke that the U.S. would send its military to invade Canada to establish the level of military protection the U.S. thinks necessary to protect North America. However, not to worry because most Americans cannot find Canada on a map. Before you start harping about American ignorance of world affairs, stop to think what you're saying. I have been quite impressed by the level of knowledge of Mars Society members on this board, please don't spoil it.

Are still harping about military size? Let me put it this way, Canada has put great effort into ensuring other countries of the world do not want to attack Canada. If Canada continues to follow the U.S. in every conflict it starts, Canada will become a target as well. Canada cannot afford that. We have chosen to focus our economy on peaceful endeavours and assisting other countries with non-military issues, our military has been deliberately downsized. Canada's military is not sized to fight every country the U.S. picks a fight with, and Canada's economy cannot support such a military expansion. Canada cannot and will not support the level of military spending the U.S. squanders. Just looking proportionately, the U.S. spends a greater proportion of its GDP on military than any other country not engaged in active war. This raises the question "Why"? Or more to the point, why would you expect Canada to do that? Perhaps the current loss of jobs in the U.S. sends a message that the excessive focus on military is not a good thing. I seem to remember the Soviet Union spent far too much on military, now what happened to it?

Canada's currency is grossly undervalued on money markets. If you are complaining that the low Canadian dollar is responsible for the trade imbalance, then try to convince money traders to increase the value of the Canadian dollar. The low value with respect to the U.S. dollar does not reflect relative spending power, and the low value does not help someone living in Canada.

It was inappropriate for Canadian government officials to call the U.S. president a moron. The prime minister's aid who first made that comment has been ask to resign. Perhaps I should quote a letter written by a Canadian comedian, Rick Mercer:

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.
I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.
I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you, doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.
I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defence I guess our excuse could be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.
I'm sorry we burnt down your white house during the war of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it. It's Very Nice.
I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we feel your pain.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you want to have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.
And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this. We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.
Cheers

clark · 2003-04-21 09:05:27

America invade Canada? LOL.

Look, why would we want to go and take over Canada's problems? I mean, the Quebec portion of Canada alone should be enough of a reason to not get involved with them.

Oh Canada, Oh Canada
Maple leaf something something something
da da dum dum da.

Now play hockey... eh!

Seriously, ragging on Canada as inferior to the US is just lame. As a nation, they have been a steadfast ally. As a people, they often times better represent some of the aspects of what Americans hold to be the 'american way' better than we do. As individuals, they're are so similar to us that divisions between us are imaginary and arbitrary.

They have different opininions than us. This is based on their experience, their history, which is different from ours. If anything, we should respect their opinion, and listen to their point of view becuase their interests are inherently tied to our own, their advice is far more trustworthy than any other nation on Earth (save perhaps our own). Canada isn't France (even though is DOES have Quebec). Canada isn't Communist Cuba. Canada is our peaceful neighbor to the North.

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 09:09:56

Tim, Canada does have to put up with things like a California senator seriously raising the issue of sending the U.S. marines to invade Canada in order to force B.C.

Seriously raising? I doubt that.

However, not to worry because most Americans cannot find Canada on a map. Before you start harping about American ignorance of world affairs, stop to think what you're saying.

Please, REREAD MY FIRST POST. I said in general the vast majority of all people, US, Canadian, Euro, etc are generally ignorant and easy to manipulate.

Are still harping about military size? Let me put it this way, Canada has put great effort into ensuring other countries of the world do not want to attack Canada.

Exactly, hiding behind the skirts of the neighboring superpower. ie free lunch. Of course canada can hide from major world problems because there is an adult to take care of these things.

I think we are in complete agreement now.

Please enlighten me - what will canada be doing to solve the korean crisis? The Israeli/Palestinian crisis?

The answer: nothing. The US will (at least attempt to) solve these issues and Canada will benefit from the free ride.

If Canada continues to follow the U.S. in every conflict it starts

This is just flamebait. You probably really believe this because you've said it several times. Besides the highly questionable Iraqi adventure, what other conflict was started by the US?

What other were "picked" and "started" by the US and Canada was forced to join?

We have chosen to focus our economy on peaceful endeavours and assisting other countries with non-military issues, our military has been deliberately downsized.

Agreed. Canada has deliberately chosen a free lunch over shared security. I'm glad that we are in sync on this.

Just looking proportionately, the U.S. spends a greater proportion of its GDP on military than any other country not engaged in active war.

Really? Can you tell me what percentage GDP is spent by Pakistan, India and just about every third world nation?

You are confusing the HUGE US economy with "proportion of GDP". In fact, the US spends about 3.5% GDP on military adventures, a tiny amount only because our economy is so huge.

Canada's currency is grossly undervalued on money markets. If you are complaining that the low Canadian dollar is responsible for the trade imbalance

Very good. Now we also agree that there is a large trade imbalance and it's due to the canadian dollar, and not due to some weird and illogical assertion about the "flagging US economy" (logic dictates if that were the case, the US would be buying less from Canada than vice versa)

It was inappropriate for Canadian government officials to call the U.S. president a moron.

Now you have agreed that the behavior from many canadians is inappropriate. I will say that too, especially in light of the free lunch and favorable trade position.

It appears that we have achieved agreement and there's no point in further debate.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-21 09:52:12

If Canada continues to follow the U.S. in every conflict it starts
This is just mindless flamebait. You probably really believe this because you've said it several times, but it's endlessly dumb. Besides the highly questionable Iraqi adventure, what other conflict was started by the US?

Canada was asked to participate in the invasion of Granada. Canada refused, but did send in the RCMP afterward to clean up the mess.

You see, when Granada first debated leaving Brittan, many people in Granada were worried their governor would be corrupt if he became president. Many in Granada wanted to join Canada. They started to prepare a referendum with 3 options: remain a colony, become an independent country, join Canada as the 11th province. As they were preparing that referendum, the Canadian government told them "Hey guys, we don't want you." You see the Canadian federal government was worried the world would view Canada as expansionist. So they did separate, and the governor did become president, and he was corrupt. It took them years to get rid of him, but his replacement was just as bad. The corruption was reported to include siphoning money to supporters of the government, stuffing ballot boxes for re-election, etc. After years of corrupt government they held a revolution, but they decided to install a communist government. Then Ronald Regan decided to invade and force them to have a government he liked. The U.S. senate said "No" to the invasion, but president Regan sent in the military anyway. Canada would not participate because Canada would not invade a country that wanted to join. If Canada wanted a say in how their government was organized, they could have joined Canada; then they would have been subject to Canada's constitution, to Canada's federal laws, and under the jurisdiction of Canada's federal police, the RCMP.

I can't think of another that Canada was asked to join. I strongly disagree with what was done to Nicaragua. The only democratic government in that country was overthrown with aid from the U.S. because the Nicaragua government told all foreign companies to get out. The U.S. based multinationals did not like that, so got Washington to overthrow them. That was far from defence of democracy. However, it is true that Canada was not asked to get involved in that.

As for "hiding behind the skirts of the neighbouring superpower", being the international Boy Scout and making friends with everyone does not constitute "hiding behind skirts". Canada feels that a military that can destroy the world several times over is not a good thing.

As for the Korean crisis, pardon me if I view the U.S. attitude toward Korea as more of a worry than anything Korea is doing. They aren't threatening to attack anyone, so leave them alone.

As for the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, Canada has offered assistance and been rejected. Canada feels both sides have behaved very badly, but Palestine feels Canada is biased toward Israel because the U.S. supports Israel and Canada is allied with the U.S. If Canada argues that point too strongly it could offend the U.S., so Canada will stay out until asked for assistance. Canada will not interfere where it is not wanted.

dickbill · 2003-04-21 10:05:18

I said in general the vast majority of all people, US, Canadian, Eurotrash, etc are generally ignorant and easy to manipulate.
It appears that we have achieved agreement and there's no point in further debate.

who is eurotrash ?

Regarding "their is nothing anymore to debate", only time will say. G Bush was unwise to say that now that the war is over, the world will be more secure and peaceful.
What happen if there is another terrorist attack in the future ?. I don't wish it obviously, because it is always the civilians who pays, I or my relatives, could well be in the pack of targeted people. So, in that regard I feel at least as concerned as the politicians or military people.
Maybe the Bush administration will apply the strategy of the "medecins de Moliere. At that time, under Louis the 14th, the most popular medical startegy was to redraw blood from the patient. I don't know why these "doctors" believed that, maybe Ecrasez-l-infame knows that. But anyway, Moliere depicted with much irony and critics those doctors always fighting for "what is the disease and how to cure it" and because very often, the patient died in their hands. When the treatment was unsucessfull, rather to admit their ignorance, their main argument was:

The patient feels bad today ? it's because we had not redraw enough blood from him yesterday. We shall redraw more blood tonight !

tim_perdue · 2003-04-21 11:02:59

As for the Korean crisis, pardon me if I view the U.S. attitude toward Korea as more of a worry than anything Korea is doing. They aren't threatening to attack anyone, so leave them alone.

Uh oh, you're making more fabulously ill-informed statements again. Please follow the rhetoric coming out of N Korea more closely. They absolutely are threatening the world, and threatening nuclear war if the UN Security Council does anything about it.

Again, the VAST VAST majority of people are woefully and poorly informed about world affairs, and know only the barest basics of things that form their belief systems.

In just a handful of posts, many of your core beliefs have been shattered. Trade with the US (Canada has a huge trade surplus), military (canada's is smaller than even iceland), US military expenditures (smaller, in terms of GDP than 1/2 the world's countries), and now N Korea's benevolent dictator has been revealed as the monster he is.

What's next?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-19 10:59:57

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#2 2003-04-19 13:11:29

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#3 2003-04-19 13:38:24

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#4 2003-04-19 14:02:16

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#5 2003-04-19 14:03:08

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#6 2003-04-19 14:04:09

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#7 2003-04-19 14:16:14

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#8 2003-04-19 14:17:40

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#9 2003-04-19 14:29:04

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#10 2003-04-19 15:56:14

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#11 2003-04-19 16:29:16

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#12 2003-04-19 18:09:40

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#13 2003-04-20 02:14:47

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#14 2003-04-20 05:06:22

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#15 2003-04-20 07:54:36

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#16 2003-04-20 18:46:38

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#17 2003-04-20 20:01:00

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#18 2003-04-20 23:06:04

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#19 2003-04-21 04:02:09

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#20 2003-04-21 08:14:06

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#21 2003-04-21 09:05:27

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#22 2003-04-21 09:09:56

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#23 2003-04-21 09:52:12

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#24 2003-04-21 10:05:18

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

#25 2003-04-21 11:02:59

Re: USA, UN, The World - Yankee Rose speaks her mind :)

Board footer