(Canadian)Liberal senator: 'Screw the Americans'

National Post(Ottawa Citizen) ^ | March 27, 2003 | Jack Aubry and Robert Benzie

[Windcatcher]

It's not just the Canadians. The subplot to this entire war, both in and outside the US, is the "war" of the Communist Left vs. the Right. American leftists and Communists, with their comrades-in-arms in Canada and Europe, see this as their chance to try to eliminate a right-wing government that they despise. Nothing we've seen so far originates so much from opposition to war as opposition to Bush and opposition to those of us on the right.

To not put too fine a point on it, the war against Iraq is really the subplot; the REAL war is the verbal and ideological war currently being waged everywhere else. We are under siege by the Left. They have their sights squarely poised on the election in '04 and this opposition to the war in Iraq is merely the opening conflict. They are no doubt sharpening their proverbial knives for the next act in their siege if and when the war in Iraq ends.

[pbear8]

I'll fill my bathtub with water and put in a pirahna for your fishing pleasure. Afterwards I'll supply Ginzu knives for you to clean the fish before grilling on my George Foreman grill. All for only $1995.00 But wait!! If you call in the next ten minutes I'll included the Handi-Chef and Pasta Pro for free. Call now.

[Mr. Mojo]

'Screw the Americans'

I wonder if this hoser realizes that if the U.S. actually wanted to screw Canada, our northern neighbors would be in financial straights similar to ....Venezuela.

[Mr. Mojo]

Nothing we've seen so far originates so much from opposition to war as opposition to Bush and opposition to those of us on the right.

No doubt about it. If a Clinton or Gore were currently sitting in the WH and conducting this war in exactly the same manner as Bush now is, the opposition would be close to nil.

[Mr. Mojo]

Indeed he did -- Operation Desert Fox. Many Iraqi civilians died, and the reaction from the media and the professional protestors the world over was zilch. Tom Daschle argued at the time that Saddam's WMD were a menace to the entire world, and that he must be stopped at all costs. Saddam has had 5 years (after we last kicked out the inpsectors) to build upon that arsenal that everyone knew and admitted he had at the time, but Daschle and the Dems all took a giant 180 and were/are all of a sudden unconvinced (now that a Republican graced the WH).

But getting back to the Slickster, he didn't even seek UN approval for his Kosovo adventure, where hundreds of innocent civilians were murdered (by us). ....the same UN approval that leftists the world over demanded the Bush administration receive. And it's worth noting the obvious: Milosevic's regime posed absolutely no danger to either the U.S. or any other nation. They didn't have WMD, and they didn't finance or collaborate with international terrorist orgs.

[Mr. Mojo]

Welcome to FR, btw.

[Windcatcher]

I'm not entirely sure about this. Tony Blair is the leader of the Labour Party; he's far removed from Thatcherism (or at least he was when he was elected).

Regarding Canada, France, Germany, and Russia (off the top of my head), I'm seeing opposition to the US from governments that are decidedly farther to the left in the political spectrum. In the specific case of Germany, the German leadership was very open about shifting farther to the left to oppose us to appease the left-of-center voting public. In the case of Tony Blair and England, it's well known that a majority (or very near to one; the numbers vary) of his own party oppose his position and his alignment with the US. If he survives, it will be due in no small part to support from the Tories. A supreme irony, at the very least.

Canadians and Europeans don't have the power to "eliminate" Bush as President

Perhaps I didn't explain what I meant well enough. No one outside of the US can directly eliminate any elected official here. However, that neither means that these people outside the US don't desire it, nor does it mean that they are powerless in their wish to see the Bush administration gone. The war of the Left is a war of public opinion. From the opposition of foreign governments, to protests in their cities, to the language in their media (some of which may be truthful and some of which may be propaganda), they are clearly waging an all-out war to try to swing public opinion in the US their way.

the American Left has been fairly well demonized in mainstream media

I'm sorry but I beg to differ. I've seen coverage, but I've rarely if ever seen people like peace protestors described in the media as "of the Left" or "representative of the Left". While there can be no doubt that they are indeed leftists, the media has gone out of their way to portray these people as anything but. Even when you extend the argument to leftists who, while not violent, still oppose the war (e.g. Hollywood celebrities), nowhere in the media will you see them openly identified as having any connection whatsoever to the Left. While violent or disruptive protestors are being somewhat demonized, their leftist bent, their leftist position is most certainly not being pointed out.

This seems a bit black-and-white. Leftists, from what I gather, aren't "opposed" to rightwingers themselves

This is what I really meant. Truthfully, does anyone oppose people? We oppose their policies, we oppose their point of view, we oppose their actions, or we oppose what they intend to do to us or our country.

They see an injustice, and they're doing what they feel is right to try to correct it

This is no doubt true of some fraction (large or small) of the protestors, but I have no doubt whatsoever that a great many of them have a larger political agenda that overshadows their opposition to war (though this opposition might be real). It's a question of motives, and which ones are more important to them. I submit that their opposition to right-wing and Libertarian policies is their primary motive.

Not to split hairs, but Tony Blair has been as ideological as anyone these days. He's trying even harder than George W. Bush to colour things in moral terms.

This seems like a strawman argument to me. Labour is vehemently opposing him, and the opposition from all the other leftists around the world (in my opinion) bears my argument out.


Do I think there are real reasons for calling this a "War on Terror"? I'm honestly not sure. If this were any country other than Iraq, the purported reality of a terrorist connection would matter a great deal to me. However, in the specific case of Iraq, I think the terror argument is redundant. Simply put, I think twelve years and seventeen UN resolutions is enough, and I would support this action regardless. I think only time will truly tell as to whether the terrorism argument was truth or propaganda. I think you're right to be acutely aware of how the given reasons for going after Iraq have seemingly shifted, and my "propaganda detector" is flashing red as well. However, I'm willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt.

Okay, now I'm angry. You made me use HTML. I hate using HTML >:)

[Balata]

Fact: After today Iran has done more for the Coalition of the Willing than France, Canada, Germany, Russia, Democratics,...

[Beck_isright]

Have no fear, we're already ready to screw your nation back economically until you get rid of those Castro wannabees running your nation.

V

[wku man]

There used to be good crappie fishing in Taylorsville Lake. You might give it a try.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[mathurine]

like "dorque les americains mit mon limpue dicque si vous plait."

[Mr. Mojo]

Fact: You're right.

[sonofatpatcher2]

"De, I'm from Canada and you're an old Georgia boy. What would you do if I stood up and shouted, 'Screw the Americans?'"
"You'd be dead, Bill."

[Paraclete]

Looks like the Canadians are imploding.

[Mr. Mojo]

LOL!