Does CANADA deserve to be whipped by US?

Re: sorry, I couldn't resist

A couple of facts:
Nearly 90% of the Canadian population lives within 150 miles of the U.S. border. We have access to four major television networks - CBC, NBC, CBS and ABC. A poll recently conducted by Rogers Cable (in conjuction with the Angus Reid Group) in 1999 showed that nearly 57% of all Canadians watch CNN on a regular basis. The Canadian government has a team of more than 500 federal consultants who work closely with the officials in Washington, DC. on issues such as cross-border trade, continental defense, NAFTA, tourism, policing (FBI-RCMP), foreign policy, etc.,etc.
Yes, tourism in Canada is good (this due to the value of our dollar). We have always treated American tourists with courtesy and respect.
"Whipping Canada" is not an appropriate topic for this forum (any forum).

 

Many Americans think so, too.

 

I was among the 60 % of Canadians who voted for other parties. The opposition in Canada is so fragmented that in the second last election they had a majority government with 38 % of the popular vote.

Jean Chretien learned English as an adult so English Canadians believe that his sounding like a senile moron is just part of the language barrier. In French speaking Quebec, they don't vote for him because they understand a senile moron when they hear one.

 

I really resent this kind of talk about the President. I can certainly understand disagreeing with his programs, policies and opinions but he clearly is not unintelligent. I may have felt that many of Clinton's ideas, programs and behaviors were idiotic. Even though I disagreed with his behavior, and programs, I certainly did not call him names or pretend his ideas were without any merit or thought. The office of the President deserves respect wether it is held by a democrat or republican. I find the name calling and total dismissal of other points of views to be very childish and immature. I apologize if this comes across harsh and judgemental, but I really think there needs to be more dialogue and less preaching and hatred.

 

Now, now Dennis! 130 years ago he was the boy wonder of Shawinigan. How a grateful nation forgets...

 

Back to the history lesson.

Back to the American Revolution. Continuing up the coast from the original 13 American colonies was Nova Scotia, populated to a large degree by people from the colonies further south.

American sailors thought they would punish the British by looting and pillaging many of the towns in Nova Scotia. Needless to say any thought of sharing the fruits of liberation was lost on the Nova Scotians.

Les Quebecois also preferred British conquest to American liberation.

Ontario and New Brunswick were settled by Loyalist refugees from American brutality.

Canada's history started with a firm desire not to be American for very good reasons and you must forgive us if we don't jump on every American bandwagon that comes by.

Just for info, the Princess Pats mentioned in the original article are Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, a Canadian regiment.

They received a presidential citation for helping to save an American division's butt in Korea and lost four soldiers to an American bomb in Afghanistan.

Am I a Canadian nationalist or what? Not many of us left.

 

If the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, you can be certain that Canadian soldiers will be there fighting with them. The U.S. is definitely a superpower, but like a professional boxer in a title fight, you need a good ring crew to get you through each round. Canada has always supported U.S. operations in times of conflict.

 

Jack,
First of all, the majority of Canadians didn't vote for these clowns.
Second, I have to agree with Dennis. The current government got in with only 38 % of the popular vote (this definitely does not represent a majority).
regards,

 

WOW,
Since we are on the subject of Canadians and in due course the conversation would naturally evolve to the French.....I have too ask a question: Is it true the French are ready too surrender the moment they hear a car back-fire????? By the way, why didn't some of the French "resistance" jump into foray at Dieppe and help the Canadians out at this seldom mentioned raid???
Mums the word- Buckwheat

 

Les Fusliers Mont Royal, a Canadian Regiment, would have been at Dieppe. The Royal 22nd Regiment, Le Regiment de la Chaudiere, Le Regiment du Maissoneuve, and the Three Rivers Regiment were French Canadian regiments with proud war records. Many French Canadians also served in mixed or English speaking regiments.

I tire of Quebec politics but find no fault with French Canadian character, having known dozens of them.

Canada started WWII somewhat disasterously. A brigade defending Hong Kong in 1941 suffered 100 % casualties, while the undersized division (6 battalions plus armour??) attacking Dieppe in 1942 suffered about 80 % casualties.

 

Anybody ever read George Grant's Lament for a Nation?

 

The problem with Canadian soldiers is that there simply aren't enough of them.

Canada has a GDP roughly the same size as Russia's, but its defense budget is one loonie and some pocket lint.

Of course, if US jets would stop attacking the few Canadian soldiers there are, it would help.

 

For a country of 30 million, Canada has only 3 infantry regiments of three battalions each and three armoured regiments, one with tanks(30 year old German Leopards). A Canadian armoured regiment has 60-80 AFVs, equivalent to an American tank battalion. Together about one division.

Our helicopters are approaching 40 years old. We have a bit over 100 F18s. Half of them are mothballed because we can't afford to fly them. We bought four used diesel subs from the British and they leak. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Of the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, I can only say stuff happens.

 

I would have to agree. In 1951 the "honest john" missle system was dismantled during the early stages of its development. The Canadian military was hoping to have a short range nuclear delivery system in place by the end of the 1950s (Yes, the military wanted to produce nuclear weapons). During the mid-1950's the Deifenbaker government halted the production of the Arrow, a high speed interceptor jet capable of intercepting Russian fighters and bombers. The government backed out of the deal shortly after the first two Arrows were produced. We also had the opportunity to build 4 nuclear class destroyers for the navy. This was squashed by the Trudeau government in 1968.
Brian Mulroney didn't want to purchase 24 new helicopters for the infantry. The military's budget was actually reduced by 20% during the early 1990s.

Jean Chretien doesn't want to increase spending on military defense. So what does that leave us with? An outdated military force roughly about the same size as Argentina's military. If America looks to us for assistance, we'll have to send you the RCMP (on horseback).

 

Re: Re: sorry, I couldn't resist

Look, I've got nothing against Canada. If anything, I have some admiration for Canada stemming from the whole Nunavut thing. I'm not looking for a fight on this issue either. I'm just saying that your agument remains unconvincing. All the "facts" you've cited indicate only that Canadians like American money, American geography and American protection. They don't mean Canadians like "America," you know, its policies, its philosophies, the things that constitute American bedrock. I'm not trying to say that Canada is NOT pro-American, I'm just saying your argument is unconvincing. BTW, I didn't start this "whipping" thread and have never used that language...don't throw it in my face. Beyond that I'd point out that if you REALLY were pro-American you'd recognize that freedom of speech is always appropriate, everywhere
Jack

 

So all this means is that Canada has got one of those screwed up "european style" coalition governments that doesn't really represent anyone. My point remain intact, only in reverse. The totality of the Canadian population cannot elect a body of officials that will effectively represent their views (that being that they have pro-American sentiments). Anyway you cut it, you get the government you deserve.
Jack

 

Let's remember that Abraham Lincoln got into office with only 40% of the popular vote--and that if he hadn't, chances are good that slavery would have expanded into the western territories and could have remained a part of American life well into the 20th century.

That said: Today, a runoff system--in both the U.S. and Canada--would cut down on controversy and disillusionment. We already have it for legislators in many regions; we just haven't extended it to executives yet.


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: Re: sorry, I couldn't resist

Ah! The Territory of Nunavut. I won't go on because my comments on the stupidity of setting up a territory based on ethnicity in a region that has zero and I mean zero economic activity could be misconstrued as racist, when in fact it would only be a comment on the ridiculousness of setting up a separate administration where almost everyone works for or is supported by the territorial government, so I shall remain silent.

 

Now THIS IS idiocy...!

Let's talk historical reality: Today most people live in (at least nominal) democracies; when was the last time a democracy waged war against another? 1814--Great Britain against the US in "The War of 1812"--and that was before the universal franchise (men AND women AND blacks, etc.) that we now take for granted!

In other words, to "view the US as the greatest threat to world peace" is simply stupid! Why? Under democracy, the force of public opinion prevents its abuse; it's to be historically and politically ignorant of who, what, and how power is weilded.

Or can you explain how letting ignorant ninnies cow nations' acting in self-defense* against fanatical tyrants achieves some "greater good?" (I think it would set a horrifying precedent.)

--Orson
*Although I, too, oppose a War on Iraq, I also understand that the post-Gulf War Peace Treaty has never taken effect: Saddam Hussein has consistently violated it's terms, rendering "peace" null-and-void, meaning that the war never ended! Hence, Bush wants to settle the conflict--definitively.