|
Contributor: rapyke
Date: 2003-03-05 07:43:06
The Minister's letter contains the statement:
We will continue to work with the U.S. and other allies to protect the values that we hold in common, such as freedom, tolerance and respect for cultural diversity.
I believe it is this commonly held belief that leads to both 'anti-americanism' and the 'anti-anti-americanism' message contained in this post and thread.
We do NOT, in my view, share many common values with the USA. This popular myth is at the bottom of our somewhat schizophrenic national opinion of the USA.
The USA is intolerant of other cultures. From its earliest days it has been a 'melting pot' expecting and demanding that immigrants and refugees alike give up and revoke their ethnic and racial heritage. They waged a war of aggression on Native Americans and took the land they now call their country in a way that would be condemned anywhere in the world today. This is clear proof of intolerance.
Their much touted freedoms are put in question by their actions and by their constitution. Religous freedom is called into question by their reliance on the judeochristian God in whom they trust. Creationism is taught in schools - based on the bible. They allow and even encourage their citizens to 'bear arms' and their President has said very publically indeed, that "you are either with us or against us".
Is this America bashing? These are simple truths.
Canadians are not Americans - we are not even close to being Americans. Why then should we accept their world view?
Our rights as Canadians protect our right to question and express our views. Canada for example, has not established an off-shore prison in which we hold people we think may have had some involvement in the horrible events of September 11. The Americans have done this in contravention of international law.
The USA seems totally unwilling to accept any opinion aside from their own in any matter in which they take an interest. They are bussily buying allies with billions of dollars in military aid and calling all who question them 'enemies'.
Why on earth should I support such a state?
Why are the Americans pushing for an aggressive war on an independant nation (again)? Terrorism? Where is the proof? If any other nation on earth proposed a similar action they would be branded as an aggressive, evil nation - but the USA is correct in this?
Iraq is an unpleasant player on the world stage, but they are an independant country. If there are to be steps taken to correct their actions, let the United Nations or the World Court initiate those steps - support them and give them the resources they need to do their job.
Unfortunately, the United States has not accepted the World Court, nor has it paid its dues to the United Nations. Are these the actions of a nation that sees itself as a democracy, or are they the actions of an aggressive power intent on making war as a way to invade countries that they do not like?
The attack on the World Trade Centre was a crime on a large scale. Certainly not the biggest crime in history, but big. Crimes are the jurisdiction of the police, not armies.
When a person commits a crime, no matter how terrible, that person is arrested, and tried in a court. The country where she or he went to school is not put on trial. The army does not start a war to punish the state where she or he grew-up. Why is this any different?
No matter how hard I look, I cannot see any justification for the actions being taken by the USA.
I applaud the Canadian Government for its position to date - The United Nations is the only appropriate place to deal with these issues. If we want to extend Canadian values into the world, then democratic decision making is of primary importance.
The USA is wrong. Their actions are bordering on criminal.
That is not America bashing it is a simple statement of fact.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-05 09:59:50
I cannot disagree more. Except the "melting pot" versus "cultural mosaic" - our values are shared quite closely.
I say this because in the course of my day, in order to keep my family fed and sheltered, I must interact with say 50 odd americans.
Our daily lives are similar and we can relate to each other very much.
Not every American runs around with rifles spitting on immigrants. As much as it would please many Canadians to think so.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-05 10:03:08
How can you say Americans are bullying allies with aid?
Consider this:
American diplomats have a position. They argue forcefully for its allies to agree.
The allies see how rich America is and suggest that if America wants their support, they should cough up some aid.
It is entirely plausible that countries are trying to wring money out of the US as opposed to the US forcing money down their throats.
Where is the proof that the US is pushing instead of being pulled?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-05 15:58:07
Cfallon, I'm not convinced that there's any point in posting'proof'. You'd just shift the definition of 'proof' and dismiss what was presented as racist anti-americanism. Missing entirely the point that it isn't anti-americanism at all - just anti-Bushism, ant-warism, anti-unilateralism, anti-burning-civiliansism. It serves the war hunger well to lump all dissent under the bogeyman of anti-americanism. It doesn't serve the peace of the world well though.
Yesterday a lawyer in a New York shopping mall was arrested for wearing a T-shirt he'd just bought that said "Give Peace A Chance" on it. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-usa-shirt.html
Is he anti-american?
I can't help but wonder how much Turkey charged Alexander the Great or Darius to pass through/bivouac.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-07 12:01:18
Banquo's ghost,
I apologize to you for being so shifty. Must be my bad upbringing.
I don't think people against war are anti-american.
I don't think people against Bush are anti-american.
BUT, I don't think its appropriate to ascribe hidden and sinister motives to people who believe a different course of action is required from the course you advocate.
We agree that we want world peace, we disagree on how to achieve it. We each suspect the other's chosen approach will lead to greater instability and suffering.
But, the "anti-war" side won't accept the first point of agreement: we both want world peace. The "anti-war" side insists that oil greed and world domination is the objective.
So, its hard to have a legitimate debate when your motives are being challenged and held in dis-repute - which mine are constantly through these discussions.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-07 15:37:42
All right, let's see if we can leave motives out of it altogether.
Of course, it's already been established by many here that all countries mis-state or equivocate when it comes to motives on the international stage so we can't necessarily simply accept what those countries might say at face value. This problem deepens when the stated motivations given by countries alter as questions arise about those stated motivations.
So in the absence of clear and reliable information about motives how do we proceed? Do we simply assume *no motive*? Not feasible really. Unmotivated action is the domain of psycho-pathology and I don't think we want to go there.
Something always motivates rational human action. Sort of a truism. Also sort of a truism that humans always want to try to understand the motivations of those whose actions affect their lives. And even sometimes to understand their own motivations.
Unfortunately this understanding of motivations tends to require the asking of the question "Why?".
Which brings us back to the problem of not having reliable information. Unless it doesn't. Perhaps it's wrong after all to say that in all cases all countries mis-state or equivocate when it comes to their motivations. Perhaps *this* time there's a country telling the absolute truth about their motivations, about all their motivations, each time they state their motivations, no matter which official of that country makes the statement. But then we have to open the door to the possiblity that other countries are capable of the same thing, of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unless we don't and there's really only *one* country with the virtue of international truthfulness. That's a write off of the potential trustworthiness of an awful lot of humanity. Might not want to go there either.
None of which addresses the question of *your* motivation.
So, let's assume, for the sake of our conversation, that you have arrived at your point of view on your own, through your own in-depth research, independent of the views of USA or UK media, think tanks or governmental agencies. You have not been swayed or deterred either by mis-statements or equivocations. Neither have you bought into the notion that there is one country in the world and one only whose public statements of motive can be taken at face value and trusted.
You support war because you support war. That is the only non-speculative thing that can be said about your motivations. You don't support it because you believe the US and UK. You support it because you support it. Further to that, as you have said, you support it because it's a route to peace. Which, it must follow, we are not presently experiencing. Otherwise why go to war to acquire peace if we are already experiencing peace. So we must already be at war.
Which will lead us to peace, which is what you really want, and which we are apparently not presently experiencing.
----------------------
I want most fervently to end world hunger. By the logic of instigating war to achieve peace in a time of peace, I will have to see to it that many more people go hungry in order to achieve my goal.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-10 16:47:14
I understand and enjoy the clever logic of your argument, however...
1) I do think we are at war right now. As a Quebecer, I can assure you a society can be at war with itself without a single cut or kill. And the costs of such a cold war are enormous.
2) Also, on motivation - I rely on the constitution of each country as a measure of ultimate motive. I expect the citizens of each country to hold their leaders accountable for each tenet of their constitution. Its not sexy or clever, but that's how I feel.
3) I don't want to go to war. But I don't see how we lift sanctions on Iraq without assuring ourselves that there is no threat of a psychotic regime from using its immense purchasing power to kill many hundreds of thousands of people. I believe the genocide that Saddam has unleashed within his country is a dress rehearsal for what he'll do as soon as he returns to pre-sanction conditions.
Am I wrong? I HOPE SO!
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: critictrue1
Date: 2003-03-10 19:36:28
Whose security concerns us?
Perhaps if the USA had not sold or given Iraq weapons of mass destruction we would not be in the present situation.
Why are we concerned about missiles with short ranges?
Is the goal to create a democratic state with Hollywood so that the Iraqi people will be able to see how we killed evil Saddam followers and helped the people. (US has bases in over 2/3 of the countries in the world. (Like the Roman Empire)
Even in Quebec, Canada we had terrorists and a desire to be free. ( I thought they were free in a free country.)
Lastly, Louis Riel that most honorable criminal that all Catholics and Francaphones need to thank.
Those that went west to KILL the devil received 1/2 section of land but the Metis, Poundmaker, Big Bear? > Castle Loma is a result of the moneys to be made.
Iraq needs to be destroyed for our security.
Intelligent people believe this?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-11 15:38:26
Uhh, no one says Iraq needs to be destroyed for our security. But let me ask you:
Do intelligent people think the sanctions aren't destroying Iraq as we speak?
Do intelligent people think Saddam is not destroying Iraq as we speak?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-10 19:56:04
"I do think we are at war right now. As a Quebecer, I can assure you a society can be at war with itself without a single cut or kill. And the costs of such a cold war are enormous." This is rather specious of you really.
"I rely on the constitution of each country as a measure of ultimate motive. I expect the citizens of each country to hold their leaders accountable for each tenet of their constitution." Me too. Where's the US Congress Declaration of War. That's their constitutional prerogative, not the POTUS.
"But I don't see how we lift sanctions on Iraq without assuring ourselves that there is no threat of a psychotic regime from using its immense purchasing power to kill many hundreds of thousands of people." Same way we did with a much more well armed Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. We contain and refuse to abandon diplomacy.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-11 15:44:47
Okay, so we agree that the motives of a country are ultimately derived from that country's constitution. We're getting somewhere.
I don't think containment will work. It did not work with the Soviet Union, we defeated them by outspending them, not containing them. They were quite successful at expanding their sphere of influence over large swaths of the globe.
You are correct, I should not have mentioned Quebec. I was a little over-zealous.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-11 20:08:55
"I don't think containment will work. It did not work with the Soviet Union, we defeated them by outspending them, not containing them. They were quite successful at expanding their sphere of influence over large swaths of the globe." OK...let's outspend Iraq. Pretty easy to do I should imagine. The Soviet Union is a curious artifact of history now. Whether we outspent them or deterred/contained them or whatever. We *did not* send 3000 Cruise missiles onto their heads. Maybe because we knew they had 3000 to send right back at us. Irrelevant really...the SU is no more and outright war was never declared.
Where did we get exactly with respect to constitutions? Can you 'splain to me what we can understand about the US motives by quoting from the US constitution and then advancing an argument about motives?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-12 11:06:56
Inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The "root causes" of terrorism are people living without access to these rights.
When the US acts to keep these rights from people of other countries, it acts in a manner that contradicts its principles and therefore is in bad faith.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-12 13:36:48
That's the Declaration of Independence actually. I do, however, take your point because in many ways the D of I is a more useful historical document when it comes to trying to understand some of the roots of the US psyche.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-12 20:01:25
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."...is the bit most relevant to our discussion here I think. This is in the second paragraph, not much more than a couple of sentences beyond the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness you alluded to.
This is then made more complex by the articulation of the theory of Manifest Destiny: "In 1845, a democratic leader and influential editor by the name of John L. O'Sullivan gave the movement its name. In an attempt to explain America's thirst for expansion, and to present a defense for America's claim to new territories he wrote:
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (copied from http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/manifest/manif1.htm)
So we have the "right of the people to alter or abolish" their government coloured by "the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole...", then continent, now world?
Food for cheap pop-psychological thought, ne? :-)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-13 15:29:00
Quite interesting stuff.
I think you are correct that the current update of that statement is "the world".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: critictrue1
Date: 2003-03-12 09:15:39
The Berlin Wall came down mostly because peoples behind the Iron curtain were able to receive telecommunications from the west. East Germans modified their TV receivers and saw how west Germany lived for example. People lived off the state but stopped producing. No longer did they believe the lies of their government and one day the American public will wake up as well and realize that Ari and the boys hold dual citizenship.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-12 16:47:43
Critictrue1:
This, along with that other comment regarding the Rothschilds comes across as a cryptic dig at a what? Some conspiracy that controls media and finance...
I really don't understand your point.
Dual citizenship with what country: US and Israel? Is that your implication?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-05 12:01:09
Americans are not intolerant of other cultures at all. When refugees and immigrants arrive in another country, it is quite normal that they adapt to the new culture, otherwise they should not go into that country! Yes, they did wage a war of aggression on native americans, but that was in the past. The French and British did the same with the colonialism, the arabs did the same in the middle ages to spread Islam. (The King (of England or France?) signed a treaty in the 18th century with the natives of Canada saying that large parts of canadian territory would forever be theirs without 'white' intervention... Look at Canada today).
This is all the past, i do not think there is any one single country which has not done something wrong in the past...
As for religion, i think it is the right of the American majority to believe in any God they wish, and if the government is also close to the majority i don't see any problem either
with that. You have your own personal opinions on weapons, God, etc., but the American people have another opinion. Why do you say your opinion is right while theirs is wrong? Are they violating any international law regarding this? No, so there is no problem. If you don't like the way they live, you should simply not live there. I think these points, are non-issues.
Regarding the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, the Americans considered they were attacked, and they did ask the taliban government to hand over Bin Laden, but the taliban said no. So US's response was entirely correct in that case, and i do think Canada would have done the same (if we had the resources of course).
As for the other points you mentioned, i agree with you. The US government does not take into account the rest of the countries when dealing with international issues, and that is not good at all. But this is not related to the US people, but the US government, which are two different things. I am against the war on Iraq, i am against the rejection of the Kyoto protocol by the US government, i am against many things the US government is doing...
But i do think that the Canadian people and American people are similar ... We share a lot in common with them.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: rapyke
Date: 2003-03-05 17:06:40
The US government is the US people. I have American friends too, but as a nation, they are collectively responsible for the actions of their government.
I also admit to having strong views on this topic, but the simple fact remains - The United States of America is about to engage in a war of agression with the stated goal of removing the lawful government of an independant nation. This proposed war is being urged and forced on the global community by the United States who has said they will proceed alone regardless of Global opinion.
Opposition to a war is building in the US and other countries around the world at a governmental level and a grassroots level and that is good. If the US follows through with its stated goal of war, it won't be enough though. I know that not all 'Americans' are in agreement with their Government - they are responsible for it though.
Do I hate 'Americans'? Certainly not! Their government however... that is a different story. Their President, their Commander in Chief, is about to lead them into committing an evil act of aggression.
Canada is right to take the position that the UN must decide. War in the Middle East will have global impacts - the global community must decide.
God bless America?
No.
God help America.
God help the world.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-06 07:18:59
Most of the points you just wrote i agree with...
But don't forget that when you elect a government, you don't necessarily know what that government will do down the road... I don't think Mr. Bush's government said they would invade Iraq while doing the election campaign... We have to take everything in perspective.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-15 04:49:39
I dertainly agree with you there codc01.
Elected government leaders often do not do as promised. We know that very well in BC. I believe there is a large segment of the US people who are against the war without UN sanctions. We will see by the Peace Marches this weekend. But Mr Bush ignores them as he does anyone who doesn't share his viewpoint.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-03-15 16:11:45
For me, the problem is not even Bush (well he's part of the problem by not saying no to all his advisors) but the crazy people behind him... Advisors who lived the cold war era and have not grown up since (Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld...)...
In all cases, i agree with you most US citizens who know the facts (a lot simply don't know the facts), are against war without UN backing...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-03-06 11:31:35
If the *people* of a country can be deemed to be accountable for the actions of the *government* of a country anywhere at all it's in a democratically governed country.
Which is what makes the idea of bombing a country where the citizens are under the thumb of a dictator all the more obscene. If the war is going to happen it should be a ground action with close and local air support to ensure only combatants are targeted.
But the big toys are just too much fun to leave at home. Wanna see the big bang-bang flash. Oh boy. Lookee there. It blowed up good.
Reply to this message
|
|
