Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (12335)	12/1/2001 11:03:48 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 281500

"GFY, Jim. You writing editorials for the Nat'l Post, or gonna discuss foreign policy and what goes into it?" I am responding to a vocal group of posters who seem fixated on the concept that Americans are breaking the NAFTA rules. I have seen no post on their part that acknowledges such behaviour is anticipated by NAFTA, no post that indicates that such behavior is entirely possible, predictable, and more than that, possibly represents a legitimate expression of the feelings of a majority of the American people. I have seen page after page of bleating about the success of American lobbyists (who, I take it, are bad, while Canadian lobbyists are good). I have seen complaints, as you put it, that "The fix is in". Would that be your conceptualization of American Foreign Policy? Nowhere have I seen a post by any supposed "victim" of American Softwood Lumber Dispute actions that shows a knowledge of the inherent limits of NAFTA, and recognition of the historical gyrations of our trade relationships. The common refrain is "Unfair! Mean, nasty Americans!" Not once have I seen a comment by any of the supposed students of "...foreign policy and what goes into it..." that the actions of the lobbyists, and of the American government might be a legitimate reaction from the standpoint of their interests. My point here is that these comments do not derive from an understanding of "...foreign policy and what goes into it...". Rather, in their tone and constant repetition, they amount to the use of this thread as a Bully Pulpit from a historically inaccurate and self-interested point of view. Further, that the interests of these people would be better served if they, and the governments that represent them, were focused on diversifying markets, and negotiating from a position of strength, instead of requiring compliance with an agreement that may be slipping into obscurity. Finally, I continue to note that we have a long history of negotiating bilateral agreements on matters such as these, and it is still my expectation that we will find a mutually acceptable agreement, with which we both can comply. With that, I will abandon the subject, and await those posts demonstrating a greater knowledge of "...foreign policy and what goes into it..."