To: John Carragher who wrote (2228 ) 3/27/2003 3:33:17 PM From: Eashoa' M'sheekha Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 37201 >>Bush got the presidency . get over it!...<< Interesting choice of words John.Bush did indeed “ get “ the presidency,it’s whether or not he actually “ won “ it fair and square that will haunt many Americans for years to come.They will get over it too,but many will be quick to bring this account of the (S)election up if things don’t go swimmingly going forward. >> I am glad it is not Gore trying to run this country.. We would have to take a several polls before he got out of bed.<< I supported Bush here on SI in the last election.What a mistake THAT was!I had no idea how far he would diverge from his election platform once (S)elected.He came across as right of center – not right of right. And to suggest the Bush Admin does not reflect on the polls is disingenuous . >>Security along the border is extremely important to U.S. a number of terrorist have come across from Canada.<< Yes yes yes……we keep hearing this here John,however the “ number “ is miniscule compared to the populations at large and the numbers of people crossing that boarded day after day.I think Bush is using this boarder issue as leverage in an attempt to influence,if not control,our foreign policy positions and to a degree undermine our more open immigration policy.The US has every right to dictate its policy on its side of the boarder,and Canada should be receptive towards a more secure boarder,but the “ Blame Canada “ South Park Style rhetoric is both unwarranted and adolescent in character. >>Tighten security at the border hurts not only Canada in slowing down car part shipments, wood, etc into U.S. but also hurts the U.S. ,, slows down production, layoffs on both sides.. Retailers no inventory.. So let's be more fair and balanced. Ggg<<< It is indeed a balancing act John,but you don’t try to reach balanced objectives by holding your foot on the weigh scales and expecting the other side to turn its head and ignore the realities .Canadians might be more concerned with the fallout from heavy handed HomeLand Security initiatives creeping into THIS country, over the very same boarders they are trying to protect. >You cannot say Canada does not have a problem in defense spending.. On the way to Afgan .. didn't the planes have to turn around due to maintenance problems and have U.S. planes fly the troops over? Are not your helecopters all over thirty or forty years old. Serious maintenance problems for those in the your service who operate them.< Well, if we really must go tangential here,then so be it. Canada’s defense spending is not up to where many would like it,myself and others here included.You do realize Canada does has a diverse population,and the Franci - phony contingent is largely responsible for our lack of military spending?They would rather a Festival every weekend in Quebec,complete with mimes and government subsidies,than to spend on their defence.I assume they believe any country that attacks Canada would be their liberators.Interestingly enough,the Franci-phonies were citing closer ties with America not that long ago.I believe reality has probably bitten them in the ass since then, cause I doubt Americans want anything to do with the Quebecois and they themselves are taking a fresh look at America in its current state.That’s the reality of Canada John….get used to it. <GGG> >>Perhaps what the he was trying to say is many countries are not maintaining defense at their risk to support other social programs that are chocking you. << I don’t believe they are choking us as much as those who abhor any from of social society would like you to believe.The far right in America is a “ user pay “ society,that would welcome the Indian style Caste System if it were allowed.No thank you John…not on this side of the fence. And another thing……this “ defense “ hoo-haw is suspect in and of itself. Defense against who exactly? We are not the ones who benefit from America’s hedgemony,not in any direct way at least.We only indirectly share in the benefits of this program, and more often than not, are directly subject to this policy. No John, what he was “ trying to say “ came straight from the lips of Condi Rice, who, stuck in a Cold War fantasy world, may get her hidden psychological wish for its return if things continue on trend here. I have stated on a number of occasions over the year, the possibility of a new arms race emerging from the current policies of this administration.Now we are seeing rumblings of exactly that,however the bigger issue might be,was this intentional to begin with, or just another oversight along the path to a Supra – Dominant Global position under the “ Bush Doctrine “. GWB wants to know who is with him and who is against him.I would emphatically say Canada is for the most part very much “ with America “– Just not necessarily GWB and the current administration and its policies. That should not be construed to signal anti –Americanism – since America is a democracy and the next administration may have totally different policies.Remember,we have had essentially the same Government for the last ten years.It is America that has changed, not us,but we are sympathetic and willing partners in the “ War On Terrorism “.That fits with our “ Canadian Values. The War On Iraq does not. We are still a Sovereign Nation ,and will continue to abide by “ Made In Canada “ policies, but have and will always have consideration for our friends and neighbors to the South,and wish their troops “ GodSpeed “ in the current conflict. Cheers… KC