Open Letter to America from a Canadian (MegaBarf Alert!)

The Baltimore Chronicle ^ | 8.7.02 | W.R. McDougall

[Sunsong]

"You're damn right I'm a disrupter..."

This I believe.

Tell me Snowyman, what is a fair level of taxation? 20% of income? 30%? 40%? 50% more?

[Fenris3]

"we should remember the Canadian snipers awarded medals by our forces for their efforts in Afghanistan."

I served next to Canadians in Somolia. They were an honorable lot. And they shared their wine with us on New Years! (don't ask, the Candaian version of MREs was a banquet compared to ours).

True, some Canadians do enjoy mocking us, much in the same way we wail against Microsoft or the Dallas Cowboys. Don't take it too personal.

As for the writer, don't confuse French Euro-trash with our Canadian neighbors. Europe has devolved into an envious impotent nanny-state. Give them your pity, not your anger.

Semper Fidelis
Sgt B. Wood

[Fenris3]

"Synagogues were torched and Torah Scrolls burned as mobs of young Arab and Berber men rampaged through the streets of Southern France and Germany, while both governments turned a blind eye to the violence."

True. Saw a 30 minute documentary on it. Flipping through the remote late a night, trying to find some news on whats happening in the midde-east, and I come across this. About 15 minutes through, the documentary cuts for commercial break and I discover IM WATCHING THE 700 CLUB! HELOOOO! Why is the 700 Club the only "network" (blech) showing us whats really going on Europe?

[Sunsong]

Why Canada Must Reject War on Iraq

by Linda McQuaig -- August 14, 2002

“We have to think pretty hard about what kind of government we want to replace Saddam Hussein with.” Oddly, this comment provoked no particular reaction when it was made by a prominent American commentator on a CBC Radio program last week.

I suspect that if the commentator had instead said something like: “I don’t see anything wrong with eating another person, if you’re really, really hungry,” the interviewer would have expressed surprise, if not disapproval.

But there was no response when the commentator — Lee Hamilton, director of the Washington-funded Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars — blithely suggested Washington has the right to forcibly overthrow the government of another country and then determine what the new regime should be.

Yes, Saddam Hussein is a dictator. But which international law — or any other type of law — specifies, in the absence of democracy, that responsibility for selecting a nation’s leader falls to the United States?

The raw aggression of this proposition is hidden behind the often-used phrase “regime change” to describe U.S. intentions towards Iraq. “Regime change” sounds strangely benign, like something that happens when voters go to the polls. In this case, however, it would happen when the world’s most heavily armed nation unleashes its massive firepower against another country — a plan that enjoys virtually no support in the world community.

Certainly Washington’s keenness to bomb Iraq should give us pause about aligning ourselves more closely with the United States — as a number of influential Canadians have been urging, in the wake of September 11.

Last June, for instance, the C.D. Howe Institute published a study by well-known historian J.L. Granatstein, arguing that Canada has no choice but to co-operate with the U.S. on North American defence and the war on terrorism.

My gut feeling is to be suspicious whenever someone says we have “no choice.” (Recall the mantra, “there is no alternative,” when we were being told to accept deep cuts to our social programs. And, of course, one barely hears of the “global economy,” without hearing about how powerless we are in it. Indeed, one is more likely to encounter the word “impotence” attending a seminar on globalization than listening to hallway chatter at a Viagra convention.)

Granatstein urges Canadians to be “practical” rather than “emotional” in deciding whether to support the expanded U.S. war on terror — good advice. But he then goes on to make the odd assumption that full Canadian co-operation falls into the “practical” column, while remaining skeptical belongs in the “emotional” column.

Surely, it’s the other way around. There might be some emotional reasons — sympathy for September 11 victims, for instance — for supporting the United States, but it’s hard to see practical benefits in signing up for future wars.

Granatstein argues full co-operation would give Canada greater influence with Washington. Yeah, and investing in Florida swamp land will make you rich quick.

Having our troops serve under American generals in Afghanistan did nothing to protect Canada’s softwood lumber industry, nor did it increase our clout in military matters. When we protested the U.S. failure to apply the Geneva conventions to prisoners seized (by us) in Afghanistan, Washington basically brushed us off. Perhaps the brush-off would have been quicker if we hadn’t had troops in Afghanistan, but a slower rebuff seems a minimal benefit.

Rejecting U.S. warmongering might actually increase our clout in the world community. U.S. academic Tony Judt argued in the New York Review of Books this week that Canada and Scandinavian nations “exercise influence far above their weight in international affairs because of their worldwide identification with aid and peacekeeping.”

Judt’s larger point was that Washington’s obstreperous, go-it-alone behaviour is diminishing its influence in the world, despite its overwhelming military power. “Even the mere appearance of taking the world seriously would enhance American influence immeasurably — from European intellectuals to Islamic fundamentalists; anti-Americanism feeds voraciously off the claim that the U.S. is callously indifferent to the views and needs of others.”

It hardly makes sense for us to get more firmly on board with Washington, when its swaggering lawlessness endangers world security. Not only would our support deliver us no clout in Washington, it would reduce us to a pretty sorry excuse for a country. If that’s the best we can muster as a nation, we better cross our fingers and hope there are some more courageous countries out there with the guts to speak out against grossly anti-democratic behaviour, even when it’s on the part of the well-muscled “leader of the free world.”

Originally published by The Toronto Star.

[watcher1]

This is nothing new for Canadians. They are vehemently anti-American,

Yes! you do understand.

I say invade now!

[watcher1]

Canadians embraced gun registration which tells you all you need to know about their world view

Yep. We don't need them, we don't want them

[watcher1]

Strip away the anti-Americanism, which is par for the course for the Canadian Left (indeed, with a significant plurality of the Canadian population
&
Bullsnit, you don't know what you're talking about...

canuckistans true colors shine very bright
The vast majority of you are a bunch of anit-American cry babies and you are all Sheep!

[Mortimer Snavely]

This guy's been milking his elk herd too long.

[watcher1]

One has to wonder why some people in America would bash our friends in Canada. Canadian troops are risking their lives also defending Freedom.

Where are those troops today?

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

Canada - the retarded giant sleeping on our doorstep.

[watcher1]

Canada - the retarded giant sleeping on our doorstep

You mean canuckistan the retarded giant sleeping on our doorstep, don't you?

[Mortimer Snavely]

Ultimate Canadian goal:

And thanks to Canadian World Domination Web Site for the top secret security leak!

To all Canadian World Domination conspirators:

Before invading the US, please give us enough notice so that we may get enough coffee percolating by the time you get here. Oh, and please bring beer.

[KDD]

Perceptive.... It should be obvious to all.

[Mortimer Snavely]

"They're brownshirts. All of them."

You are correct, but because most of the knee-jerk left do not understand their own ideas, they are unable to see any connection. Besides, it would require a lot of hard reading and deep thinking, which is beyond most people's ability these days. A full, technical analysis of why this is the case is found in The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff.

Basically, the case is made that the political corollary of dominant Weimar cultural paradigms was Hitler. In the contemporary West the dominant cultural paradigm is Woodstock, and the political corollary is Hillary Clinton.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Where are those troops today?"

Afganastain among other places.

[Snowyman]

August the 19th,1942. Operation Jubilee.Today we remember Dieppe where 4,963 Canadians landed ,907 died,1,154 were
wounded and 1,894 were captured.

This was my brother
At Dieppe.
Quietly a hero
Who gave his life
Like a gift.
Withholding nothing.
His youth ... his love ...
His enjoyment of being alive ...
His future, like a book
With half the pages still uncut -
This was my brother
At Dieppe ...
The one who built me a doll house
When I was seven,
Complete to the last small picture frame,
Nothing forgotten.
He was awfully good at fixing things,
At stepping into the breach when he was needed.
That's what he did at Dieppe.
He was needed.

And even death must have been a little ashamed
At his eagerness.

Mona Gould

[baseballfanjm]

He seems to make some correct points but in the wrong sense. Actually, by doing this he weakens his argument.

[robertpaulsen]

Invade!

[NorthernRight]

Linda "Lefty" McQuaig, is a well-known and highly notorious leftist muck-raker. McQuaig never met a leftist idea she didn't like. Viciously, rabidly anti-American, she's a lock-step socialist "pod-person".

And so, Lefty Linda pens yet another bilious, anti-American screed. These leftist are so predictable, and ultimately, so boring.

In her article, Lefty Linda McQuaig wrote:

...U.S. academic Tony Judt argued in the New York Review of Books...

McQuaig should have explained that Tony Judt, is a well known and well established leftist intellectual, and prodigious author. A Professor of History at New York University, Erich Maria Remarque Professor of European Studies, Modern Europe; Professor, History; Director, Remarque Institute. Here are two listings of his works and articles:   http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/history/tony_judt.htm

and     http://www.nybooks.com/authors/274

Obviously an accomplished academic, but if you examine the venues, journals and publications where he's published, you'll notice that each and every one is leftist, left-leaning, or outright marxist in viewpoint. As well, we must consider, the New York Review of Books, the left's flagship publication of record. Read today only by superannuated marxists, and the failing remnants of the '60's left, it's the last popular bastion of leftist writing and "critical thought".

That McQuaig reads NYRoB, is not surprising at all. Now, if she would only read Commentary, she might get educated!

Now, here is Ezra Levant's excellent view on this.

---

National Post         Thursday » August 15 » 2002

Why Canada should declare war

Ezra Levant
National Post

Thursday, August 15, 2002


Bill Graham, Canada's Foreign Minister, does not want Canada to declare war on Iraq. But Mr. Graham has not come out against war itself -- just against Canada declaring war. He wants diplomats at the United Nations, not Canada's elected Members of Parliament, to make that decision.

Our pusillanimous European allies have shown that there are many arguments against declaring war -- some of them legitimate. Fear is the most common reason the Europeans seem to express when they speak in opposition to an invasion of Iraq: fear of military casualties, fear of a backlash from the tens of millions of Arabs who now live in Europe, fear of a new, U.S.-oriented Middle East displacing European influence. Another common excuse, favoured by the UN's Kofi Annan, is the naive hope that Saddam Hussein's ambitions can be appeased without war. Lack of military preparedness is another reason to avoid a war -- and not an unjustified one for most European countries and Canada, too. And then there is simple, unvarnished anti-Americanism, the dominant foreign affairs ideology of the European Union.

But Mr. Graham's rationale is surely novel. Even if Iraq refuses to abandon its nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic-missile weapons programs, even if Saddam continues to bankroll terrorism around the world and practise it himself domestically, the toughest reply Mr. Graham will muster is this: "The repercussions are, we could go to the [UN] Security Council and say, now the peace and security of the world is at stake here," he told reporters this week.

Even when Mr. Graham's own limits of appeasement are exceeded, he insists we continue to abdicate to others the decision to attack Iraq.

"If they [Iraq] are going to refuse to let inspectors in, then I think it is going to be up to the Security Council to revisit exactly what we are going to do," Mr. Graham said. But Canada is not a member of the Security Council, so the "we" in Mr. Graham's sentence does not refer to what the UN is going to do. It refers to what Canada is going to do. Mr. Graham no longer sets our country's foreign policy. The UN Security Council does, stacked as it is with such moral beacons as Syria, China and Cameroon.

Just as there are many legitimate reasons for which Canada should not declare war, there are even more, and more persuasive, reasons why we should. Rooting out a murderous dictator is one reason, the same one Canada cited when we attacked Slobodan Milosevic. Answering the call of the United States, our closest ally, is another reason, as much an act of political self-interest as one of nobility. Pre-emptively destroying Saddam's weapons is another. But jumping to fulfill an edict from the UN is not.

The UN was conceived as a meeting place for nations' diplomats, a clearing house for national interests. It has no democratic mandate or legitimacy of its own. If Mr. Graham feels that a certain UN vote is also in Canada's national interest, then that is a happy coincidence. If our interests are not the same, then Canada's sovereignty -- especially over a declaration of war, the gravest decision a government can make -- must trump Mr. Graham's utopian adherence to the latest diplomatic fad. Section 91 (7) of Canada's Constitution grants sole jurisdiction for the "Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence" to the Canadian government. Our Constitution makes no mention of the United Nations.

If this government's recent foreign affairs misadventures are any predictor, it is likely that Mr. Graham's rhetoric of one-world anti-Americanism will be replaced, at the eleventh hour, by hard-headed self-interest after all. That is how it was in the days after September 11, when Canada's official response -- cool ennui -- prompted a pro-U.S. backlash across the country. That is how it was again when the United States invaded Afghanistan -- when months of official Liberal pacifism were replaced by a surprisingly large dispatch of troops.

Doubtless, Mr. Graham's opposition to an Iraq attack will be turned into grudging support in the face of a combination of behind-the-scenes diplomatic carrots and sticks from Washington combined with the inevitable surge of Canadian public support for the liberation of Iraq.

It will not be a democratic decision, certainly not one treated to a debate or vote by mere Canadian MPs. But at least it will be a decision made in Canada, not one made at the UN and followed obediently by Mr. Graham.

© Copyright 2002 National Post

---

So you see watcher1, we're not all rabid loonatic (sic) anti-Americans up here. But you already know that. You just love pissing off the half-dozen conservatives that live up here, don't you?     Jerk.