SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (310205)10/21/2002 9:56:28 PM
From: Mr. Forthright  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
but to say or even suggest that Canada and its people " hate " America or Americans is beyond ludicrous .In fact, it is downright shameful

I am so happy to hear you say that because it is exactly how I feel. However, please have the courage to recognize our shortcomings - as a Canadian I have no problem recognizing them - I do not suffer from the Canadian inferiority factor.

Anyway, I thought you would enjoy reading this article from the - oh, very Canadian (Torontonian?) - newspaper:

<<Steering our own course
Despite the dominance of the U.S. in world affairs, we must not shrink from our ideals, even if it conflicts with America's
By Richard Gwyn

A COMMENTARY that's become popular these days — expressed most recently by former ambassador to Washington Allan Gotlieb in a National Post article — is that Canada is "fading" in the world.

Our military strength is now negligible. Our traditional foreign policy — stuff like "soft power," pursuing "human security" and peacekeeping and trying to be a "helpful fixer" — is obsolete.

There is something to this. Not the hand-wringing about the size of our defence budget. Our soldiers may be brave and skilled, but it's been decades since there have been enough of them to make a detectable difference. The technology gap (also the gap in defence budgets) is now so wide that only Britain, and even it only just now, still matters to the U.S. militarily.

In foreign policy, though, it truly is a whole new world order. In today's unipolar world, everyone else, China in the end little differently from Canada, revolves around the American sun like minor, and fading, planets.

The similarity of U.S. dominance compared to Rome's has been developing for some time. Radically new is the readiness in Washington to act like Rome, unapologetically and ruthlessly.

Hence doctrines like "pre-emptive defence" which is a fancy way of saying the U.S. will do what it pleases whenever it pleases.But for a few lingering diplomatic niceties, this is the essence of the new National Security Strategy released in Washington this week.

The most honest Washington commentary I know of about this phenomenon was by John Bolton, the Number 3 at the State Department. "There is no such thing as the United Nations," Bolton has said. "There is an international community than can be led by the only real power — the U.S. — when it suits our interests."

Which leaves Canada between a rock and a hard place. Gotlieb, for instance, has made the shrewd point that there are now "no, or few, middle powers left to collaborate with." The kind of liberal, multilateralist policies we once could promote with the likes of Sweden, Holland, Australia, Yugoslavia, Mexico, Egypt, may now be beyond us.

One way for us to get out from the rock and hard place is to become invisible. This is Gotlieb's solution. No more "hectoring and lecturing." No criticizing the U.S. for rejecting the International Criminal Court. Just "ready, aye, ready," with, occasionally, some helpful backstage advice (or, more accurately, a periodic claim to Canadians to have given such advice and to have been listened to respectfully).

The other way is to continue to speak out with a Canadian voice. Not to be provocative or self-indulgent. [NDRL: Now THAT is Canadian] Not to claim any moral superiority (mostly we possess superior circumstances, from affluence to that of having our national security guaranteed by the U.S.).

But because we have something to say that is worth saying to the world, to Americans, to ourselves.

Soft power, human security, peacekeeping [NDLR: How the hell can we do that without an army - read: we are trying to fool the world that we can pull our own weight], helpful fixing, haven't lost their value because the world is unipolar and because the war on terrorism dominates today's headlines.

They are indeed integral parts of any effective war on terrorism. [NDLR: see previous posts on our PM meeting with terrorists]Peace isn't made by making a desert, though that — the use of raw military power, that's to say — is often a necessary first step.

Afterwards has to come nation building, the development of a civic society, economic progress, democracy, the rule of law. Otherwise more terrorists will spring up like dragon's teeth to replace today's dead, or jailed, ones. [NDLR: yaeh, why not leave the living ones alone as they will be replaced if killed. Why bother]

This is what we're good at. It's our international niche.[NDLR: please no jokes on Canadians guys] Indeed, this, rather than a few hundred soldiers or an extra destroyer, is what we can do for the U.S that will make a detectable difference.

This — I believe — is what Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has been trying to say by his talk about how poverty, Western greed and the humiliations we have inflicted on others, are part of the reason for the terrorism.,[NDLR: NO, he said that the US were partly to blame for 9/11 because of their wealth and arrogance] His phraseology was clumsy. His timing was terrible. [NDLR: good try]

But his courage was considerable. He was telling Americans what they need to know, which is that President George W. Bush's declaration that "evil" explains everything, is incomplete. (Actually, it's thoroughly silly).

Nor are we alone. Britain's Tony Blair has said — earlier — the same thing. So have many Americans, such as former President Jimmy Carter.[NDLR: Ouch, bad choice, he is an embarrassment ot his country too] Around the world many others know it full well but just lack, for the moment, the guts to say it.

But, say the nervous Nellies, if we speak out we'll get stomped on. Lester Pearson didn't for speaking out about the Vietnam war. Pierre Trudeau didn't for his 1984-85 peace initiative that Washington detested.

What we need is the same courage to pursue our ideals as all those neo-cons in Washington have shown in pursuing — if wrong-headedly — their ideal of a Pax Americana.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gwyn's column appears Wednesday and Sunday. He can be reached at gwynR@sympatico.ca

Additional articles by Richard Gwyn>>



To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (310205)10/21/2002 10:08:48 PM
From: Mr. Forthright  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
I also found this one. Remember it? One of those, you know: The Americans are so rude, we Canadians are so nice.

<<Why does U.S. loathe Iraq so much?
By Linda McQuaig


IT'S ALWAYS useful, in a debate, to be able to cite sources from your opponent's side. But, has it really come to this: The definitive case against invading Iraq may now be coming from the CIA?

The Bush administration was struggling last week to figure out what spin could possibly be put on a letter, written by Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet, which pretty much demolishes the U.S. case for invading Iraq.

The letter, released by Senate Democrats, reveals the CIA considers Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is unlikely to launch an unprovoked attack, but the chances of him responding to a U.S. attack — including with biological or chemical weapons — are "pretty high."

So, it would follow that — although the CIA director, for obvious reasons, didn't go on to say this — only a fool would invade Iraq.

One possible conclusion is that somebody should investigate whether Tenet is really a loyal American (certainly, anyone without CIA credentials making this sort of point would be quickly branded anti-American).

Another possible conclusion is that the CIA is onto something here. The CIA letter highlights the bizarre paradox of Washington's behaviour.

Although President George Bush always couches talk of invasion in terms of enhancing American security, it's hard to imagine a more reckless policy when it comes to that very security.

The obvious way to make America safer would be to reduce the level of hatred people in many parts of the world feel toward America. But this would require Washington to change its behaviour, to become less aggressive and intrusive in the affairs of other countries.[NDLR: NOW IS THAT A JOKE OR WHAT??????

Yet, after a year of discussion of how to deal with the terrorist threat, we seem no closer to actually addressing any of this.

Discussion of the so-called "root causes" of terrorism is still pretty much off-limits, risking the charge of being unsympathetic to 9/11 victims. Instead, we're encouraged to keep our gaze fixed on the evil that lurks in parts of the world where people wear those odd, loose-fitting garments. U.S. brutality abroad is the elephant in the room from which we're supposed to politely divert our gaze.

So, for instance, anyone who's turned on a TV in the last year knows about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. Less well known is the death of some 1.5 million Iraqis — including, according to the U.N., 500,000 children — caused by the economic sanctions which Washington strong-armed the U.N. Security Council to adopt and maintain since 1991.

In an article in Harper's magazine this month, U.S. academic Joy Gordon documents how Washington has consistently and deliberately used the sanctions to block Iraq from obtaining every sort of vital good — including dialysis, cardiac and dental equipment, incubators and ventilators for intensive care units, equipment for processing milk, bread and yogurt and, most serious of all, generators to run water-treatment plants.

With millions of Iraqis therefore obliged to drink water contaminated by raw sewage, diseases which had been largely eradicated in Iraq have made a comeback; 13 per cent of all Iraqi children are now dead before their fifth birthday. If these sanctions aren't a weapon of mass destruction, what should we call them?

Gordon shows how, time and again, the U.S. (and often Britain) has blocked Iraq's access to some desperately needed item, while other Security Council members have tried to get it through.

Delegates from Russia, China and France, for instance, readily approved a Syrian proposal in 2000 to build a flour mill in Iraq, after a U.N. report found 25 per cent of children in southern and central Iraq suffered from malnutrition. The delegate from the U.S., however, blocked the project, insisting that approval of the mill was "premature."

These sorts of details are well-known in the Middle East, where claims of U.S. benevolence and respect for human rights have long been treated with skepticism. Watching their children die as a result of American actions, Iraqis might well ask: Why do they hate us so? — a question that will undoubtedly come up again when the U.S. invasion begins.

Gordon's point is, in fact, similar to the one raised implicitly by the CIA director: Is this really the way to make us safe?

Is the mass killing of innocent people — whether by bombs or sanctions — likely to be forgiven or forgotten any time soon by those losing loved ones? We can arm ourselves to the teeth but, as Gordon powerfully notes, "the worst destruction done on U.S. soil by foreign enemies was accomplished with little more than hatred, ingenuity and box cutters."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and political commentator.>>



To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (310205)10/21/2002 10:10:59 PM
From: Mr. Forthright  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Anyway, KCFOS, the point is I love to see how vibrant US democracy is: ours at home sucks. I wish we could all grow up, stop feeling inferior and get alone with our US friend and neighbour. Will you help me????