I think, on the one hand, Canada should stick to its principles–it’s a peaceful little place that traditionally does not go looking for trouble and sticks by its friends, and it has other friends it has to take into account besides the US. If there is a sober national consensus that this war is not worth it for (fill in thoughtful reasons) and the consequences of such displeasure are taken into account, then I think most Yanks would have no problems with such a stance.
But if it’s “Well, we’re against it because, guess what, we’re not Americans, no we’re not, and You’re Not the Boss of Us Now, so there!” in French and English with rude moose-related gestures, NSM. What Grey said, adeptness!
I must say though that more Yanks than some Canucks might think do remember and appreciate the past glories of the Canadian military, like at Juno Beach at Normandy, and realize that both nations are incredibly blessed at having a peaceful friend at our borders.
Well, that I certainly agree with. And Chretien’s doing a piss poor job of being appropriately diplomatic here, with his cabinet ministers (and he himself) making statements all over the board on the issue. Though, I must say, I thought the Afghanistan deployment was clever. But Sam Stone seemed to be suggesting not only being nice while telling Bush to screw off, but that we should in fact be siding with Bush unconditionally in order to score trade diplomacy points. That is the statement with which I’m taking issue, since I’ve never seen anything besides the interests of American corporate lobby groups have any weight in American trade policy decisions.
Read my message again. I said that we should side with the U.S. because it’s the right thing to do. And also because we are allies, and allies are supposed to have a damned good reason before they refuse to support each other. If that weren’t the case, there would be no need for alliances. If pollng at home should drive every decision a government makes, why have any international agreements at all?
And aside from these good reasons, it is also in Canada’s self-interest to stay friendly with the U.S. It affects all our relationships.
No, Sam. Allowing economic issues to dictate an ethical or moral choice would not be the right thing to do.
Damn good reasons for not supporting the Bush government’s crusade:
[ul]
[li]It has not been sanctioned by the UN[/li][li]Violence begets violence[/li][li]Giving into a bully – of any kind – is abdicating the responsibility of freedom[/li][/ul]
“little pitchers have big ears
don’t stop to count the years
and sweet songs never last too long
on broken radios”
Read my post again. I wasn’t disputing the part of your post where you said we should do it because it’s the right thing. I disagree, I think it’s the wrong thing, but that’s fine. Your point is as cogent as the argument that backing Bush on Iraq is the right thing to do.
I don’t think that Chretien should back Bush without a second UN resolution. I don’t think he should take that position because of polls, but because it’s the right thing to do, and its being the right thing to do is sufficient reason to disagree with an ally.
But the main thrust of my post was that I was disputing the part of your assertion that backing Bush on Iraq would have a positive impact on trade negotiations. I disagree. I see no evidence that it would have any positive impact, and I don’t see that you have addressed this.
The current front runner is Paul Martin the previous Finance Minister. The next 2 contenders are Sheila Copps (Heritage Minister) and John Manley (Current Deputy PM, Finance Minster, and US/Canada security top dog). Martin has been unofficially running for about …5 years now and has a slight advantage.
It’s possible that I’m reading this wrong, but it looks like there’s a misunderstanding as to what exactly “most-favored nation” status is. Or was, I should say, as it was renamed to Normal Trade Relations in 1998. Quoting from http://www.itds.treas.gov/mfn.html :
The issue with China and MFN status is that the US Congress attempted to tie MFN status with China’s human rights abuses, but the trading relationship was extended nonetheless.
It would be closer to saying that Chretien’s view mirror those that Quebec has historically valued. Patronage, flexible priorities and an aversion to war in any form.
Sam, Quebec’s popular position on war is anti-WAR, not anti-American. Or are you saying the millions and millions of Americans opposed to war are anti-American?
don’t accuse Sam Stone of wishing death upon Chretien. That was me.
I’m suprised at the 67% support rate which was quoted for Alberta. I admit we’re not the most liberal of provinces, but I haven’t seen much indication that there’s any more support here than anywhere else across Canada.
Maybe you missed the part where he engaged in an eight year war with his neighbor, Iran, invaded Kuwait, lobbed missles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, gave payments to the families of homicide bombers, and is allegedly harboring senior Al-Queda terrorists for “medical treatment” in Baghdad?
milroyj, please be a little more careful in editing posts which you quote.
Your response to an earlier post of mine makes it appear that I quoted Sam Stone. Problem is, the words were mine and in opposition to his position.
So, anyway, you said:
Now, you’re not only appearing to put words in Sam’s mouth, you’re trying to put words in mine.
Think about what the UN is supposed to represent. Think about the endrun the Bush government appears to want to make around the UN since they haven’t been able to get the world to agree to war. Think about Canada as a civilized nation. Think about what I actually said in my earlier post.
So how does more violence do anything other than perpetuate itself? Unless, of course, it is of sufficient force that there is no one left to indulge in violence.
