Oh, and I hope he’s not playing marbles up in the oval office. You can choke on those.
sorry,sorry, I couldn’t help myself
I have a grand old idea: ASK YOUR PRIME MINISTER.
Which states that after the end of a long day of press conferences and public showings where he never brought up the subject, he is finally prodded by a Canadian journalist to say a few vague words of condolence, after which one of his advisors finally wakes up and realizes that maybe a phone call from the President pledging “…complete American cooperation”, condolences, but NO apology might be in order.
A small note to the Canadians: you can expect the same “complete American cooperation” from the government agency responsible that the various U.S. government agencies give each other all the time.
None.
Yes you’re right Mr. Cynical we have the Prime Minister’s statement. I guess this is his leadership style, he delegates authority. In this case he delegated our Prime Minister to apologize on his behalf. Clearly, he thought this was sufficient. I suppose we would have preferred a 15 second shout out than to hear it second hand.
I’m sure this sort of delegation happens all the time, leaders don’t apologize personally for everything accident that happens to another country. When it’s allies fighting your war with you though, you can’t be too careful.
One would hope that if Bush had apologized to Chrétien, at least one of them would have felt like mentioning it.
Oh, yes. I would hope he would handle it differently. After all, when you, for example, accidentally smash someone else’s Ming vase, you certainly treat it differently from when you accidentally smash your own Ming vase.
For example, you apologize!!
The USA faces terrorist attacks from both external and internal groups. Canada does not to anywhere near the same degree.
The USA has massive mitilary and economic resources with which to deal with its terrorist problem, and does not need assistance from Canada.
The President of the USA has marginalized Canada through his words and deeds concerning both anti-terrorist efforts and other matters, including North American defence and international trade.
Why then does Canada continue to provide military assistance? Why not let the USA handle its own problems? Let the USA land its own passenger jets rather than diverting them. Let the USA handle the infiltration of terrorists into the USA without assistance. Let the USA fight its own war in Afganistan. These are issues which the President of the USA should consider.
Why should Canada bother with the USA’s problems, and why should Canadians die for the President of the United States, who holds Canadian dead with so little regard?
Since Canada is neither wanted nor necessary to the USA’s activities concerning terrorism, and since there is no benefit to Canada, then Canada should consider simply waling away. Canadian lives are far too precious to waste on the likes of the President of the United States.
I agree with you, Muffin, but in my opinion, Canada has a military presence in Afghanistan for the rest of the world, and because it’s the right thing to do, not for the US. You are entirely correct that the US does not need us to help fight their battles.
What I’m finding very interesting in this thread is the defensiveness of some of the US citizens posting. Let me make one point clear that has been brought up a couple times in this thread; Canadians are NOT mad because a terrible accident happened in a war zone. We’re not stupid; we know that things happen in places like this. What we’re mad about is the Head American acting like most Canadians perceive most Americans do; that is, to disregard Canada as insignificant. The US citizens on this board are by far more enlightened than the average American; most of you can probably find Canada on a world map. The average yokel, however, cannot, and the attitude that Canadians find so galling is not that so many Americans are ignorant, but that they’re so proud of it.
(This is all my opinion, of course. I can no more speak for all Canadians than Bush can for all Americans. No, wait, Bush is your elected Head of State - he DOES speak for all Americans.)
FWIW, at least some Americans agree that Bush has blown this.
But I think it’s erroneous to ascribe it to anything more than appalingly bad form and insensitivity, due in part to differences in national temperment. Canada has a much smaller population, so national events are taken far more personally.
If the shoe were on the other foot, I can honestly say that Chretian going on TV and apologizing to the US people as opposed to speaking to Bush directly wouldn’t make a bit of difference to me. As long as he wasn’t denying it happened or something I wouldn’t care. I think most Americans wouldn’t either. Some would be upset and angry, but the kind who would get really personally torqued by something like this are the kind for whom no apology would be enough anyway.
We ask that you treat Dubya as you would someone who tells jokes at a funeral. He means well.
I don’t think it’s entirely true that Canada has no role to play in combatting terrorism.
I also think it’s myopic and naive to say that Canada is not threatened by international terrorism, especially given the interdependence of the American and Candian economies.
I would like to invite Marc to the lovely city of Edmonton and take him for a drive down 97th street where the trees are all tied up in yellow and white ribbons as our city mourns the loss of four of it’s sons. There are four families that will never be the same because of this horrrific accident.
They deserve a little more respect than:
“Boo hoo you lost 4 people and had 8 injured.”
Really.
That should, of course, have been “American and Canadian economies.”
Unless there’s more truth to “Canadian Bacon” than I’ve been led to believe.
Certainly this is a tragedy, especially for the families involved, and has probably hit Canadian sensibilities especially hard because they’re the first Canadian combat casualties of any kind in 50 years.
But I’d suggest that any seeming callousness by Americans is because we’re much more used to it, as a nation anyway. Americans come home in body bags with depressing regularity, and their families grieve over the waste too.
Look at the broader picture, that has shaped sensibilities down here: The bulk of the fight to make a world a better place has fallen on us disproportionately, in relative as well as absolute terms, because we’ve accepted that responsibility more than most nations. Just for comparison, Canada has a tenth of the population and industrial base of the US, but spends only a fiftieth as much on its military. The other allies do more, but generally not by much. It’s been annoying, to say the least, to see some quotes in the Canadian media to the effect that it isn’t worth it to Canada to get involved in the world, taking a share of the responsibility for it, and should leave it to the Americans to, by implication, do the fighting and dying as well as the spending. You want to complain about ourcallousness, do you?
All those nice words and gestures of thanks to the US for accepting the responsibilities born of its capabilities are nice, but it would be nicer for other countries with their own capabilities to take on their own share of responsibility for the world. It is not, as muffin has pointed out, about helping America - it’s about helping the world, and we can do it together more than we do now.
This Yank hopes that some of the good that may come of this tragedy is a deeper introspection on the part of everyone about the nature of our responsibilities in this world we share.
I have heard you make some similar points in another thread Elvis and I do agree with you to some extent. It would probably make a good debate in it’s own right whether US has shouldered more than it’s fair share of the burden. In fact Canada is right now conducting a full scale review of its national defence policy. The first in 7 years.
I think much of the (minority) Canadian opinion about leaving the war may be reaction to this snub by Bush, it will blow over. Most here are still in support of the war and realise friendly fire accidents do happen from time to time.
There are a couple of points I would like to make regarding your post.
military spending Yes, US spends more than anyone else. You may argue that this is because the rest of the allies are shirking their responsibilties, but it is also the case that most of them have philosophical differences over the spending. They prefer to spend more on aid or peace-keeping than defense (although I am unimpressed with our spending in this as well).
military participation Out of the allies, it is actually the Northern Alliance that is doing most of the fighting and dying, then the US. However, in terms of miltary being used for peacekeeping duties, the US lags.
**
I quite agree that the USA has a serious problem with external terrorists staging and infiltrating the USA via Canada. That is not a Canadian problem. These terrorists are not attacking Canada. That is a USA problem, and if the USA seeks assistance from Canada in dealing with this problem, then the President of the USA would do well to pull up his socks.
The USA will have substantially the same problems with terrorism whether or not Canada assists the USA. The economic solution for Canada is to strengthen international trade beyond that with the USA. The ongoing softwood lumber dispute is illustrative of why Canada should look outside of North America.
Most importantly, national respect has a value. The President of the United States neither respects nor values Canada or Canadian lives. The ever so small economic difference to Canada which might be made by Canada assisting the USA is not worth having to tolerate the attitude of the President of the United States.
Canada can and does spend significant efforts in a great many areas of the world working toward world peace and social and economic development, and can and does spend resources into dealing with its own domestic issues of cultural identity, diversity and nationalism. Resources provided to the USA are resources not available for these other Candian efforts.
There is no benefit to Canada in throwing away its assets in assisting the USA. There is certainly no benefit to Canada in letting its citizens die for an entirely ungrateful President of the United States.
I believe that Canada did the right thing in trying to assist the USA in its difficulties with mid-eastern terrorists, and the terrible tragedy of 7/11 touched me deeply, as I expect it did many Canadians, but if the President of the United States is unable to maintain a respectful relationship with Canda, then I believe it is time to part ways, leave the USA to its own isolationism, and get on with our own internal and international efforts without regard or assistance to the President of the United States.
I agree that Americans tend to be more callous due to the frequency that they are returned in body bags, and I agree that the United States is disproportionately inolved in fighting throughout the world. Just because the USA is wrong headed in its international relations, and is in fact a domestic gun culture, an international economic imperial culture, and often an exporter of terrorism itself, does not mean that such efforts are appreciated. Callousness is no more than an excuse for an ongoing disregard and disprespect by the President of the United States.
**
That assumes that the world wants the USA to go about fighting, and that such fighting actually makes the world a better place. Those are very large assumptions which the USA would do well to rethink.
I think you are correct in that the reaction to the snub will blow over, and that most Canadians still support the war.
I wonder, however, if there will be any residual ill will by Canadians toward either Cretien or the Liberals for seemingly going along with the dominant international power without adequate critical aforethought, as was a popular concern during WWI with respect to Canadian nationalism.
So, Canadian long-term foreign policy should be based on the personal impressions one gets from the actions of one temporary (4 years or 8 years) leader who is not known for his understanding of etiquette?
I have no problem with Canadians bearing ill-will toward the faux cowboy in the White House over perceived insults by omission. I find it odd that anyone would allow ephemeral emotional issues dictate policies. From all accounts, Bush’s first response on hearing of the incident were to call Chretien with condolences and a pledge to investigate the incident. The White House also issued a written statement of condolences in the late morning, Thursday. Bush didn’t ignore Canada, he simply failed to realize that the Canadian public was awaiting his personal statement on the issue.
According to every account I have read, all the military and diplomatic contacts from the U.S. to Canada expressed personal condolences, so there does not appear to be a general dismissal by the U.S. nation of the Canadian sacrifice. We’re talking about one specific omission by one person (who is often regarded as clueless even in the U.S.).
For that you are going to “leave the USA to its own isolationism, and get on with our own internal and international efforts without regard or assistance to the President of the United States”?
(Obviously, Canada should be the author of its own long-term foreign policies without looking to the U.S. to “lead” it, but the idea of setting a national policy “without regard” to the world’s most powerful nation with whom one shares the longest border seems a bit hyperbolic.)
Speaking of callousness, as we were, I suspect you might have a different view if there were a smoking hole in downtown Toronto, with the ashes of 3000 people lining it, where the CN Tower used to stand.
Removing troops from Afganistan is not long-term foreign policy. It is short term re-deployment, and could help alert the USA to an ongoing problem which crosses over into bi-national issues including North American defence and also trade relations such as soft-wood lumber.
Trudeau acted without regard to the USA in opening up relations and trade with communist nations. The USA is only now beginning to catch up. I would much rather Canada take this sort of course toward international normalization, leading the USA by promoting peacekeeping rather than war, and by promoting trade rather than embargo, than by following the USA as Mulroney and Cretien tend to have done. I believe that Cretien is well meaning, but I also believe that he has never been able to emerge from Trudeau’s shadow on the international stage, and that he should give more attention to the direction Canada takes internationally.
I was attempting to compose a post (of incredible depth and insight of course) regarding our relationship with Canada, and the loss of those four soldiers through an American error, since I do value the assistance of our neighbor to the North especially since the events of 9/11. Most other Americans I know feel the same even if it isn’t foremost on people’s minds. However, now that I know that this is perceived as another example of Canada performing a great sacrifice on our behalf and getting shafted for it, well…by all means, part ways if you feel we are asking too much. I had no idea. There is a line…did you want an apology for the deaths of 4 servicemen in what is considered a tragic accident, or were you expecting an apology for mishandling (or not appreciating) the favor that you have bestowed on us by fighting alongside? It makes a difference - one would be better handled on a personal level between leaders of the countries and between the servicemen’s families and the President, since all of the details aren’t yet known. The other would be handled in a press conference via CNN. I’m not sure I like the implications of your expecting the public method and disliking the private one.