Thank You For Marginalizing Our Dead, Mr Bush

The BBQ Pit
61

The fact is that Canada does not have the animosity of many peoples of the world plotting against it. Part of the reason for this is that Canada tends not to take such an offensive stance on the interntational stage. Thus there is no effort to mount massive terrorist actions against Canada.

Decades later, we are still struggling with whether or not we were too callous in the response to the FLQ or to the independance movement as a whole both then and now, and certainly we were not callous in our more recent response to Air India.

In any event, if we were to behave in an insulting manner toward our allies, we would deserve what we get.

62

Um, Muffin, this sounds like you’re implying that the US derserved 9-11 because of their foreign policy.

If that is the case, let me take this opportunity to officially distance myself as much as is humanly possible from anything further you have to say on the matter.

To those in the US - I have heard the above opinion expressed by a few Canadians. They are by far the minority - the same people, I would imagine, that suggest spousal abused is somehow asked for by the victim. I do not share this opinion, nor do the vast majority of my countrymen.

Just as I will not allow your president’s social gaff to negatively affect my opinion of the US populace, I hope you will not allow this completely rediculous statement to negatively affect your impressions of Canada.

63

**Fuck you Spoofe, ** you obviously don’t even understand what the problem is. First of all, no one has * ever * suggested that Bush had to make a ridiculously exaggerated show of regret for, as you would claim. The most he would have to do is make a sincere, 5 minute public apology showing that he really is sorry, and he couldn’t even be bothered to do that. No one in Canada is calling for this to turn into a fucking “political circus”, and if that’s what you believe than you are either seriously misinformed or just an idiot. (most likely the latter.) Go get stuffed, buttpipe.
:mad:

64

I implied no such thing. The USA did not deserve 9/11. 9/11 was heinous and absolutely unjustifiable. I can’t find the words to describe how inhuman, how unmitigatedly evil the terrorist actions of 9/11 were. Regardless of how he USA may or may not have behaved on the international stage in recent decades, nothing it has done could remotely justify the infliction of 9/11.

My statement which you have quoted pertained to insulting behaviour between Canada and the USA, who are the allies to which I referred. It did not occur to me that anyone would mistake Afganistan or the terrorists for being Canada’s allies, and I respectfully request that you re-read what you have quoted from me with this in mind. Quite simply, it is my position that in light of ongoing insults to Canada, an appropriate response by Canada would be to redeploy our troops from Afganistan into other areas of the world where they can be of better peacekeeping utility, and that if Canada were to similarly insult the USA on an ongoing basis, then Canada would also deserve such treatment by the USA.

65

However, your statement was that Canada should go a separate way completely and your justification (which I quoted) was that one human had screwed up a bit in one area of etiquette.

That is silly.

I do not argue against Canada making Canadian decisions. I note that you have drawn one specific bad conclusion. (You have also thrown around several wild charges about the U.S., in general, but these nationalistic exchanges tend to descend into that sort of nonsense on both sides, so I have ignored them.)

66

Missing Link

67

I think I can safely say that this is one of the most offensive, tacky, insensitive and down right cruel things I have ever read on this message board.

Why don’t you tell that to those soldiers’ families, Marc?

:rolleyes:

Gee, asking Bush to maybe say publically-even after the reporter called him, to express condolences?

What if it was the other way around-that Americans were killed accidentally by Canadian fire, and the PM didn’t say boo to a goose-you’d have Ugly Americans lining up in the streets to lynch them!

What is wrong with decency, and good manners? Shame on you, for making such a disgusting statement. Yes, people die in war. Yes, it is expected. HOwever, that does not make it any LESS tragic and sorrowful to those families!

Shame on you, sir. SHAME!!!

68

I sense another instant urban legend in the making…if it weren’t for that one reporter the deaths of the Canadian soldiers would have gone unrecognized by the President. Good political fodder. There was apparently no mention of it in the Canadian news (?), but here’s a statement from Thursday which includes:

I suppose no one likes that either.

69

Well, by your logic (death of a country’s citizens is solely the problem of said country), then the death of the Canadian soldiers is strictly Canada’s problem. I don’t honestly think this is what you had in mind, but if you expect international cooperation, it ought to extend both ways. Starting with a bare minimum of concern with the lives of the citizens of both countries.

Furthermore, if Canada were to knowingly allow itself to be used as a base for anti-US terrorist operations, then anti-US terrorism would most certainly become Canada’s problem. Think “Axis of Evil - Northern Annex.” Of course I don’t expect we’d ever take military action against Canada, but I don’t expect we’d sit idly by if Canada took a laissez-faire attitude toward terrorist cells in country.

Well, it might be nice not to have to worry about terrorists on our national doorstep. For my money, there’s a huge difference between (1)trying to cope with terrorist cells operating halfway around the world under the auspices of countries who express open hostility toward the US, and (2)having an “ally” who is effectively ambivalent about whether we’re attacked or not. So yes, Canada can (and should) curtail anti-US terrorism.

Wrong on so many fronts. Canadian soldiers do not die for, nor are Canadian assets spent for the benefit of the President. Neither are they spent for the benefit of the US. If you do not see the value of trying to contain anti-Western terrorist groups, then your worldview is more isolationist than the US one you chide.

I think there is a non-trivial difference between failing to maintain “a respectful relationship” and committing an (arguably minor) faux pas, oversight, or snub. Furthermore, I’m curious about how you intend to withdraw from Canadian-US relations and not become woefully isolationist yourselves. Engaging the world means engaging its major players, and that includes the US, like it or not.

70

Well, except for the fact that an American killed them.

71

I don’t think that the President of the United States has made a one time minor slip. I believe his lack of timely attention to the issue is reflective of an ongoing marginalization of Canada. When he came to power, he focused on Mexico prior to Canada. When first dealing with 9/11 he spoke well of all the USA allies but Canada, of which he omitted mention. On the trade front, he has stood by while the USA has attempted to rip the guts out one of Canada’s primary industries.

Perhaps I am giving the President of the United States more credit than I should, but I don’t think he is so out of it that he routinely hangs Canada out to dry unintentionally. I believe his attitude and actions are reflective of his position. At worst, that means that he is deliberately putting Canada in its place, and at best it means that Canada is not significant enough to be a blip on his radar. Either way, such marginalization does not deserve continued support.

72

Yes, why indeed would al-Qaeda have attacked one of their own safe havens? Is Canada’s “immunity” due to its own inherent moral superiority, as you imply, or to simply having bought off the terrorists and endangering their neighbors’ security instead their own?

Isolationism, in all of its smug superciliousness, is an ugly and irresponsible thing no matter what country indulges in it. You’re not going to turn down the benefits of US military protection of your precious way of life, are you, even if you dismiss the costs (of all kinds) you’re not bearing? I’m relieved to see other Canadians in this thread report that people, like you, who indulge in that thoughtless bullshit are in a small minority. I wish it were as true down here, and especially in the natural tendencies of the current administration.

Balduran, those were fair and thoughtful comments. Yes, the situation is more complex than my initial rhetoric suggest, but I did that just to make a broader point. FWIW, there has been considerable frustration in Washington, even expressed publicly by Rumsfeld, over the extent to which our putative “allies” are carrying on their own responsibilities.

73

Yes, Matt. An American killed them. And if a Taliban soldier–or, for that matter, a Vietnamese, Cypriot, or Ethiopian killed them, would they be any less dead?

Folks, I am going out on a limb here because I know the Canadian military. I’ve had relatives in it, friends in it, and I stand tall every Remembrance Day for our fallen. Our boys fighting in Afghanistan are dead. Period. End stop. That all there is, and there ain’t no more.

Americans are at fault. And you know what? So what. Shit happens, and this is another example.

If the Yanks had dropped a bomb on their own people, would we Canadians be going through this crap? No. Let’s face it, folks, we wouldn’t care. For all of our bellyaching right now about Bush and Cowboy American Pilots and such, we really wouldn’t care, now would we? No, it’s only when an American fucks up and drops a bomb on our boys that we get riled. We don’t get riled when they kill themselves. Do we?

Pfft. Read your history, Canadians. Our army goes where others have lost before. Vimy Ridge. Monte Cassino. Hill 79. Ypres. Passhendale. Boer War. Juno Beach. Kapyong. Shall I go on? I could–and the names of our boys in the Chapel of Remembrance in the Peace Tower would go on and on and on…

I don’t forget. Some of you do, it seems.

Our forces fight. Today, they tend to keep the peace in the world’s hotspots, but only because our politicians have crippled them to the point where they have to rent transport to get to and from where they are going. Am I the only Canadian who is embarrassed by this? And am I the only Canadian who is proud that at least the PPCLI are there flying our flag and fighting for the world?

To do any less in terms of our contribution in the fight against terrorism such as we witnessed on September 11 would be doing a disservice to those who came before. And, on a more personal note, to my relatives and family friends who are lying in fields in France, in Belgium, and in the Far East.

The CBC and the Toronto Star notwithstanding, most Canadians know that the best friend we have in the world is the United States. And the fact that their current leader–born and raised in Texas, and looking more towards Mexico than the north–doesn’t rate us a passing glance is nothing in the long history we have with the republic to the south.

Eisenhower knew us. Kennedy knew us. Truman knew us–he should, because he bestowed a presidential unit citation on the PPCLI. If George W. Bush doesn’t know us, it’s his problem. There will be other presidents, and other prime ministers, but right now, all we can do is mourn the fallen, comfort the living, and fight the good fight, as Americans and Canadians together.

And if you’ve got a problem with that, tough.

74

Concern, yes, but concern does not necessarily mean direct military support in Afganistan, and neither does it mean homologation of border control or internal policing. Canada does not support terrorists, and acts to identfy and prosecute them. If the USA is not satisfied with Canada’s efforts in this area, then it should act accordingly.

**

I never suggested that Canada would want to be a base for terrorists. The difference in approach is whether Canada should deal with terrorists with its own resources and with its own priorities, as it did prior to 9/11, or whether it should work more closely with the USA following the USA’s priorities. For example, Canada has maintained its borders in its own best interests, but since 9/11 there has been movement toward homologating the customs and immigration processes with those of the USA so as to be better able to also act in the USA’s best interests. If the President of the United States wants to have more say in how Canada deals with its border, or with the identification and prosecution of terrorists, then he should look to his own behaviour and act accordingly.

**

Anti-western terrorist groups, or anti-American terrorist groups? Canada simply does not have the terrorist problem to anywhere near the same degree that the USA does, and although the USA in no way whatsoever deserves terrorism, the fact remains that due to the role it has chosen to play in the world, it is a target for terrorism. When looking at how to stabilize trouble spots in the world, it is not necessarily in Canada’s best interests to associate itself too closely with the USA by providing the USA with direct military support.

And yes, the Canadian soldiers did die for the President of the United States. The USA, and not the UN, is running the show in Afganistan. Canadians are there acting under the direction and in support of the USA, of which the Commander in Chief is the President. This is a very significant point, for rather than working as part of an internationally directed a peace keeping effort under UN auspices, Canada has now effectively seconded itself to the USA in a direct military action. For what duration and to what degree Canada will provide such support (for example, will Canada go along with military actions taken in further nations) is still under debate, and will continue to be under debate. The ongoing marginalization of Canada by the President of the United States is grist for the mill in the debate over what course Canada should take in meeting its own best interests.

As per my previous post, I do not think it was a minor faux pas, but rather was indicative of ongoing marginalization of Canada. Think of it as the straw which broke the camel’s back. As far as Canada becoming more isolationist, I would hope not. Failing to be led by the USA does not mean becoming more isolationist, for there is a great big world outside the USA. Sometimes Canada pretty much follows USA foreign policy. Sometimes it does not. I believe that given the present circumstances, it is time to re-evaluate the degree to which we are following USA foreign policy.

75

Spoons, despite my different opinion as to how Canada should be involved, I have the greatest respect for what you have said and how you have said it, and find your argument to be very persuasive. Thank you for pointing out the long view.

76

Well, you know what? When our ally directly causes our first combat deaths in fifty years, I feel we have the right to an apology.

The Canadians didn’t fall in battle. They were killed by a laser-guided bomb dropped by a sophisticated weapons system wielded by the most powerful army in the world.

Some kind of error on the part of an American pilot, an American ground crew, or both caused the deaths of four Canadians. It would be nice if the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would express some kind of remorse for this, some kind of “oops, our bad,” as opposed to “gee, that really sucks, dunnit?”

It’s not just a tragedy that befell some Canadians. It’s a tragedy that befell some Canadians due to the action of some Americans. If a Canadian pilot had bombed Americans, I would expect our prime mininister to apologize. When you injure your neighbour accidentally, you apologize to her. It’s that simple to me.

77

So, Muffin, a couple of questions:

What does is mean to be “concerned” about anti-US/West terrorism without doing anything to prevent it?

What’s the relevant difference between not wanting to be a terrorist base and allowing yourselves to be one?

Does the fact that Canada has been fortunate enough to avoid international terrorist attacks absolve her of any responsibility to combat international terrorism? To defend her allies? If so, how is this different from isolationism?

78

One more question:

The US and Canada share the longest unguarded national border in the world. Admission to one country is functionally equivalent to admission to both of them. Why shouldn’t the US be concerned with Canadian immigration policy?

79

Okay, I have two things to say:

  1. This is Bush’s fuck-up, not America’s. We all understand that accidents happen. Bush’s not apologizing is just tacky. It’s not the biggest deal in the world, but it really doesn’t meake me like him any more.

  2. For those of you who have expressed a “boo hoo” sentiment: Fuck you. I can’t imagine how you can say that. Did we say “boo hoo” when only 4 people died of anthrax? How is it okay to say “boo hoo” when people, real live people with fiancées and wives, and mothers and fathers die? I can’t even express this properly, I’m so angry.

80

Muffin, I thank you. We may not agree on all points, but I am glad to see that we are each proud Canadians. And with that as a common ground, we must have something in common. Again, thank you for the comments.

Matt, I’ll deal with your quotes from here.

Of course. And I’d like the Vietnamese and the Cypriots and the Ethiopians and all other peoples of the world who have been responsible for Canadians’ injuries and deaths over the past fifty years to come forward and apologize too.

Doubt me, Matt? Okay, maybe you’d like to debate my buddy, who was with the UN peacekeeping forces who went into Vietnam after the Yanks left. He’s from Nova Scotia, and was with the Canadian Forces, and saw his friends die there. No news media reported it. Nobody except the families knew it. And you’re waiting for an apology from the Yanks?

Jeez, at least Bush said something. We ain’t heard shit from the Vietnamese.

Ours was counted among those armies at one time, Matt. Or have you chosen to forget that piece of history?

Never mind. The American pilot was not authorized to drop that weapon, or at least that is my understanding from CNN and other sources. He made a snap decision, not too different from that which our own forces may have made. They are in a war zone, and unlike the police forces in Toronto and Montreal, do not have to call headquarters to get authorization to draw their weapons.

Yeah, it would. But it seems that it ain’t gonna happen. Deal with it. He’s a clod; deal with it. He’s insensitive; deal with it. He won’t be around ten years from now; deal with it. Jeez, I’ve lived through ten US presidents now; I’ve learned to deal with it.

And if it happened to Italians based on the actions of the Ukranians, your response would be…?

Just an example. But, Matt, you have to agree that many of your past posts over the years have picked on Americans somehow. I’m not defending them–Lord knows, many of their actions are reprehensible. But could it be–just perhaps–that this was some kind of accident? Some kind of an “I wish I could take that back.” And that their leader, unknowing as he is, could somehow neglect to mention it?

I don’t doubt that Mr. Bush is surrounded by advisors. And I don’t doubt that he has many issues on his plate. And I, having been in similar positions, know that some things slip through the cracks. Is Mr. Bush negligent in apologizing? Yes, most assuredly. Should he drop everything else he has on his plate to apologize? Let’s see what the situation warrants and go from there.

So would I. But if it wasn’t forthcoming in the next 24 hours because we just might have other things to attend to, I wouldn’t get my panties in a twist.

Maybe I’m too much of a pragmatist.