Thank You For Marginalizing Our Dead, Mr Bush

The BBQ Pit
81

You got one. It was Bush’s first action when he heard the news, calling Chretien to offer sympathy and full cooperation in an investigation. Within a couple of hours, the White House had offered a second apology in writing.

Bush’s goof was not broadcasting an apology to the Canadian people (figuring Chretien would convey the news).

You can still be upset that he did not express the “proper” apology in the forum that you would deem “correct.” (And I would support you in that anger, since he has demonstrated a fairly clueless attitude in that regard.*) However, you overstate your case when you imply he ignored the incident.
*Go back and look at American reaction to his statements from 9/11 through the evening of 9/13: he took a lot of flak for his bumbling, ill-considered words at the time. It was not until he could get someone to put the words on paper in front of him on the evening of 9/13 that people began to say (often grudgingly) that he was beginning to sound Presidential.

As a PR person, he is no R. Reagan–more like his daddy with bad manners.

82

Why couldn’t the President just apologize? Our mistake killed our allies.

Why the fuck couldn’t Bush make at least one public apology? All this gnashing of teeth and bullshit posturing could have been averted and bad feelings circumvented if he had just said “Sorry.”

4 of our allies died because of our mistake and the only public response from our President amounts to “Hey, I’ve already spoken to one Canadian, I don’t need to say anything to the rest of you.”

Bush was stupid and he showed very bad form.

83

Or what tom said, only less elegantly and with more curses.

84

What a bizarre statement. Canada and the United States are not enemies; they are allies. When you accidentally hurt one of your friends, you apologize.

I know it was an accident. When you accidentally hurt one of your friends, you apologize.

The President did not offer an apology. He offered condolences. As I’ve been at pains to express, they’re not the same thing. If your friend is accidentally struck with a baseball, you condole; if it was you who threw the baseball, you apologize. How difficult a concept is this?

The United States and Canada are supposed to be such great good friends. Let’s see the President of the United States act like it.

85

Your right Elvis it’s damn complicated. Like this for example:

muffin said

86

Sorry, I somehow lost my reply to that quote.

Yes it is true that US actions have made them a particular target. However, often those actions have benefitted the rest of their allies too. If the US is willing to do things others don’t have the guts for and we benefit from them, shouldn’t we also accept some of the responsibility? It seems to me this is the core of alot of frustration I’ve heard from Americans on this board lately.

Of course there are many US actions we don’t agree with on other grounds.

In the future I would like to see a better system of dividing responsibility among the allies.

87

You have assumed that the only way to deal with terrorism is the USA way under the direction of the USA, and that anything short of this is allowing one’s nation to become a base for terrorists. That is not the case. Canada does and shall continue to be concerned about terrorism in the degree to which it affects Canada, and to act according to its own best interests.

For example, Canada has a terrorism problem which has originated out of people from the the Punjab region, which is an area which recently has become inflamed even beyond its usual high degree of conflict due to the disruption caused by the war in Afganistan. In this respect, the war against terrorism in Afganistan works to increase the probability of further significant terrorist attacks in Canada by people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorists being pursued in Afganistan. Perhaps a better use of Canadian efforts would be a peace keeping mission to assist stabilization in the Punjab while the USA goes about its business in Afganistan.

The issue is to what degree such actions as the war in Afganistan, or Canadian border controls or internal security are coordinated with or directed by the USA so as to have Canada also act in the USA’s best interests. If the President of the USA wishes to better meet the best interests of the USA through co-operation with Canada, it would behoove him to act with greater consideration to Canada. For example, before instituting a new North American defence regime, one would have hoped that he would have consulted with Canada, but of course he did not.

As far as the undefended border goes, of course the USA should be concerned with Canada’s border. The USA can do whatever it wants on its side of the border. If it wants Canada to tighten Canadian controls beyond that which Canada finds necessary for Canada’s own best interests, then the USA’s President should start considering what Canada’s best interest are and start appealing to those interests, just as Canada must consider the consequences of not meeting the USA’s interests and thereby forcing tighter controls between Canada and the USA. Just because the USA has legitimate concerns over how Canada runs its country does not mean that Canada should run itself according to how the USA might wish.

88

The terrorism against the USA originating out of the middle east is primarily a result of longstanding USA foreign policy which has ensured a continuous flow of low cost oil without regard to economic and political development in those same oil producing areas. When juxtaposed with the longstanding support of Israel by the USA, the USA has put itself in a bind in which its economic interests have conflicted with its cultural interests, resulting in a mish-mash of the direction its foreign policy has taken in the middle east, and a growing animosity by many people in the region.

None of this has benefitted Canada. Canada is an oil exporting nation. We sell oil to the USA. If oil production in the middle east is restricted, Canadian exports of oil to the USA increase. Canada does not benefit by USA efforts to secure a steady supply of middle east oil. Thus statements such as “If the US is willing to do things others don’t have the guts for and we benefit from them, shouldn’t we also accept some of the responsibility?” do not readily apply to Canada concerning the middle east problem.

89

And Matt said,

I’m sorry, Matt. Did I miss something? Mr. Bush spoke with Mr. Chretien. Did that not take care of the problem? You’re carrying on as if there is more there.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that after the Americans left, the Canadians, as part of the UN forces, went into Vietnam, and treated them as allies. Or were supposed to.

All I’m looking for is an apology, from the Democratic People’s Republic of Vietnam, or whatever it’s called now, that at least acknowledges my friend’s pals who died during the “peacekeeping” that occurred there in the mid-to-late 1970s. Isn’t that in keeping with what you, Matt, expect from your allies?

We, the Canadian people, have not heard anything from the Vietnamese government. Or at least, none that I’ve heard. Am I to assume by this that you condone the attacks on Canadian soldiers in the years 1975-1980 by Vietnamese?

Do we not trade with Vietnam now?

It’s not a bizarre statement. You seem to think that because we’re such good friends with the Americans that we deserve an apology. International relations don’t work that way. We were in Cyprus and didn’t get an apology. We were in Bosnia and didn’t get one. And we were in Vietnam and didn’t get one.

Jesus-H-Mahogany-Christ-and-a-Half; what are you waiting for? An engraved invitation to the hostilities, and a thank-you note when we’re done?

Or perhaps this isn’t the reality that you’ve been exposed to. I understand that you are young and are a product of our Canadian schools. They tried to “teach” me their reality too. Thankfully, I had the guts to learn on my own, from our veterans and our Canadian soldiers, and from other sources. But you, Matt, cannot be expected to know what Canadian forces face in the field. I hear the stories straight from the soldiers’ mouths; are you too busy listening to the CBC and its propaganda?

Yes, it is propaganda. Face it, Matt; you are being manipulated.

Don’t like it? Tough. Grow up and study all the available media.

90

Wow, SPOONS chill.

I think the difference is that we weren’t doing peacekeeping IN America, we were doing peacekeeping WITH America.

It’s that whole In vs. With thing. If I’m hosting a party IN your house, I’m the host - you may or may not contribute. However, if I’m hosting a party WITH you, it implies that we have a closer relationship.

It’s ridiculous to compare Canada’s relationship with the US to either Vietnam or Cyprus - it’s apples and oranges.

91

I’m chillin’, Alice, I’m chillin’.

Thanks for bringing me back down to earth. I guess this is a hot button with me.

'Nuff said for now.

92

Yah, well, I was getting pretty crusty over in the smoking thread - I think we’re all entitled to our thing - Smoking is mine, this is yours.

93

Now here’s one of my warm buttons. The FACTS of the matter are this: The U.S only gets about 15% of it’s oil from the middle east, the rest comes from other sources, including Canada. We could replace this oil ( From the ME ) without too much pain on our economy, but we seek to keep “a continuous flow of low cost oil” flowing primarily for the benefit of our European allies and Japan, including, I might add, Great Britian, the center of that empire with which Canada is still afiliated. THAT is a DIRECT benifit that Canada, as part of the Commonwealth, reaps from U.S. policy of “a continuous flow of low cost oil”.

True, we do it because it has been in our own best interest to have a strong group of European allies for the last 60 years, but if we’re going to be playing “Isolationism for $500”, the U.S is one of the countries that would be least affected if every drop of oil in the mid east dried up tomorrow. It’s things like this that I think other American posters are refering to when they talk about how the U.S. has a central role in many foreign policy decisions, and we get criticized for it constantly. 'Course, we also hear " Why dosen’t the U.S. do something about X" when we DON’T influence things. Damned if you do…It’s the nature of being the only superpower in the 21st century, but sometime we wish people from around the world recognized that a bit more than they do.

This was not a swipe at you, Muffin, you’re a poster I highly respect, it’s just one of my buttons, as I said.

As to the OP, I personally think Dubya’s responce was adequate, but wish he’d taken a bit more time to publicly express his condolances and apologise for the tradgedy. Canada is our finest friend in the world and our staunchest ally, I wish we wouldn’t take that for granted so much.

94

You apparently have an incorrect view of the relationship between Canada and Great Britain. Canada and Great Britain share a Queen and nothing else in the way of sovereignty. The Commonwealth is not an empire, but a collection of independent countries like the United Nations or the Francophonie.

95

Actually matt, I do realize that, but Canada didn’t become completly soverign until the 20th century, and to deny that the relationship between Great Britain and Canada is nothing more than “We share a Queen and nothing else” is technicaly true, that’s like saying “We share a mother and nothing else” when talking about a close, loved sibling. If I, say, lent your sister money when she was in financial straights or saved your brother from a mugger, you’d have to be pretty calous to say that that action didn’t directly benefit you, wouldn’t you?

96

But that’s not what you said. You said, we reap direct (as opposed to indirect) benefits because we are affiliated with the British Empire. But you may have noticed that Britain no longer has an empire. (They buried their last empress the other week.) And while Canada did not repatriate our constitution until 1982, we had been, to many practical purposes, fending for ourselves since 1867. (Defending ourselves, like with a military, was one of the major selling points of Confederation.)

The fact is, little distinguishes the relationship we currently have with the UK from that which we have with our other European friends, such as France or Germany. Actions that are positive to France or Germany probably help us as much as actions positive to the UK. We have a much closer relationship with the US than with the UK. This UK thing is somewhat of a red herring on your part.

97

Well, perhaps, but the point of what I said was that the U.S. has a certain foreign policy that benifits their allies far more than it benifits the U.S., the whole Canada/U.K. relationship was a sidebar. Besides, having travelled in Canada quite a bit recently, whenever the subject of the U.S. vs Canada comes up ( it always has been in a very good natured, joshing, teasing kind of way ) The Canadains have inevitably said “The last time we fought, we burned Washington D.C.” or words to that effect. British troops burned Washington in the War of 1812, Canadian troops were busy playing pushy shovey around the Great Lakes with American troops. ( We invade Canada, get thrown back, Canada invades New York, gets thrown out, ad infinitum) This, to me, shows that a great many Canadians DO consider their history as part of the Empire and Commonwealth as an intrigal part of what Canada is.

Anyway, there’s a much better example of a direct benefit that Canada has reaped from U.S. foreign policy. Canada does not have a large Army, Navy and Air Force, they’ve never needed them, Canada has been “under our wing”, so to speak. We’re never going to allow anyone to attack Canada without jumping to Canada’s defense with both feet. That has allowed Canada to skip the expendature of large sums of money needed to maintain a large military.

98

No one is expecting Bush to get down and cry over this, but is it really SO HORRIBLE to expect him to spare a minute of his time to make a public statement?

99

**

If you are unsatisfied with Europe not carrying its weight in ensuring its own steady supply of oil, then deal with the Europeans. Don’t expect Canada to contribute based on it once having been a colony of a couple of European nations for a longer period than the USA was.

Please identify the nations which have shown an inclination to invade Canada since WWII? We do not need a large military for defense purposes because we are not on any other nation’s short list of whom to invade. This is not because of the USA umbrella, but rather is because of where we are geographically and with whom we trade.

100

Or, the third option: HE CAN FUCKING READ. Have you even read this thread?

Are you THAT big of a dumbass? Magic 8-ball says “ALL SIGNS POINT TO YES”

Look, I like Canada. I think it’s a great place. I respect their military, and its citizens. However, I think that a bunch of snot-nosed attention brats are really rubbing shit in the collective Canadian nose, and it’s a goddamn shame.