Posted on 03/07/2005 12:37:29 PM PST by Grendel9
Another day, another excuse: So now Ottawa claims we didn't join the ballistic missile defence system because... we're mad at the U.S. for their trade barriers against Canadian beef and softwood lumber.
Yeah, right.
It's not true, of course. Paul Martin -- or Mr. Dithers as the Economist calls him --flipped and flopped his way to his final, anti-U.S. decision as a result of one thing only: The France-like anti-Americanism that infests the key province of Quebec, the province that counts to him more than any other, more than Canada itself, in fact.
Martin knows that Quebecers are pacifists and anti-Americans. He wants to gain seats there. So he rebuked U.S. President George W. Bush to win points in suburban Montreal. Simple as that.
But he should say so. At least it would be honest -- crass and foolish, but honest.
Instead, he ordered our new ambassador to Washington to offer an after-the-fact rationale -- that it was all about softwood lumber and mad cow bans.
We know that's not true. Ottawa has not made the resolution of either of those issues a top priority. They weren't a top priority in the last election campaign; they haven't been a top priority in Parliament. They aren't a priority at all -- gay marriage and national daycare are Martin's priorities. This is an excuse.
But even if it were true, it would be foolish. Canada should make its military decisions based on what we need militarily. Either we need a missile-defence shield or we don't. If we need one, we should support it.
If we don't, we shouldn't. (Though it would be tough to think of why we wouldn't sign on to the U.S. proposal -- they spend all the money, we get half the benefit.)
Other political issues should never interfere with our government's essential responsibility to defend the security of our country.
To do otherwise is to hold hostage our own country's safety -- not a smart way to negotiate. Certainly not a sensible way to run a military.
But even if we weren't dealing with something as important as defence, it wouldn't be smart negotiating anyway.
The U.S. can survive without Canadian co-operation. We can't survive without theirs.
Take the beef ban. The majority of Canadian beef is -- or was -- exported to the U.S.
We can't simply "eat" our way out of that problem. The U.S., on the other hand, could easily "eat" its way out of a reciprocal beef ban, because they have 300 million mouths down there. They don't need our markets.
For everything we export to them, there are a dozen U.S. trade lobbyists trying to kick us out. The Liberal "negotiating" tactic makes their job easier.
We have much more to lose in a game of tit for tat than they do.
These points have been made by others. But there is another point, too: The West's industries are the ones being linked and threatened here. Western beef. Western lumber. Will Western oil be next? (According to the Washington-based Weekly Standard, during his recent trip to China, Martin did sign a declaration offering China favourable access to Ft. McMurray's oil sands.)
Martin's new Parliamentary ally, NDP leader Jack Layton, has expressed a desire to slap an export tax on energy, something the Liberals have experience with.
The Liberals would never play chicken with Ontario cars, or Quebec dairy products. But Western grievances? No problem,especially if the goal is to distract from the real, Quebec-based reason for disparaging the U.S.
Well, it's a vast country, so vast disagreements seem logical! <>g
And, as long as we have Dolly Parton, you will always lose.
It is time for U.S. citizens to boycott all Canadians products and for our government to no longer protect these snail shell suckers on the tax payers back.
The US has no option but to protect Canada.
We could, however, tell the EU to go pound sand.
LOL -- and, I think she may have a tat on each tit.
Sure. Let me know when you can get by without our oil, natural gas and electricity.
I wish the Western Provinces (Alberta and BC) would just join the US already. The other provinces can follow in a few years after that.
Boycotting Canada is utterly asinine. We need raw supplies, they need tax money.
Throw in Manitoba and Saskatchewan(as long as they keep Vancouver), and they can have the Blue States(provided we keep San Diego).
Destroy all Canadian products!
I'm in charge of the destruction of all Molsen in the US.
Send it to me for immediate disposal.
Manitoba would be the deepest blue of all the blue states...they are the only state or provincial govt. that is willing to go on-the-record as being officially "Socialist". (we all have our suspicious about Massachusetts however)
Be careful about a BC joining. A federal judge may grant full sovereign power to natives over land disputes in BC if ever they decide to move on!
That would initiate a boycott that could lead to the next depression. You DO know that Canada buys more stuff from us than any other nation? You do know that we are dependent on them for our enormous energy needs - don't you?
There are still a few in the True East (Atlantic Provinces) that give a damn about Canada/US relations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.