Posted on 08/06/2005 2:35:46 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
Harvey M. Sapolsky, who directs the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told some unpleasant home truths to Canadians last month in a full-page article published in the National Post. There has been little response to it, either officially or editorially, and that is significant.
"Canada is a security risk to the United States," wrote Sapolsky. "Anti-Americanism is the unstated essence of the modern Canadian identity." But there are reasons for this. After the Second World War, when Canada's historic British connection began to decline, "the threat of being absorbed, not by a conquering but by a thriving America, was real." The Canadian who succeeded in then U.S. became a "Canadian idol." Canadians came to care as much about American politics as they cared about their own.
To secure a national identity, Canada took over its own constitution. It adopted a Charter of Rights of Freedoms like the American Bill of Rights. "But a constitution does not a country make," and in the end the only thing that came to distinguish Canada was universal health care. That's why "Canada reveres its problem-laden system."
Meanwhile, Canada largely disbanded its armed forces. It had virtually deserted its NATO obligations long before the Berlin Wall came down. It "briefly sought an international reputation in peacekeeping, but greatly tempered this initiative after disastrous experiences in Somalia, where its troops misbehaved, and in Rwanda, where its leadership was ignored. Today, Canada spends only about 1 percent of its GDP on national defense."
"Canadian politicians learned that opposing American foreign policy was popular at home and carried little risk to Canada of American retaliation." So Canada provided a refuge for American draft dodgers during the Vietnam War. Its contribution to the Gulf War was "token" and it hasn't joined the Iraq War at all. While such things might have "annoyed" senior American bureaucrats, they were understandable, and "no one much cared what Canada said or did."
Yet in other respects, the U.S. should definitely care, he said. For instance, the Ottawa Treaty Banning Land Mines has been actively promoted by Canada because the devices can injure civilians. The U.S. won't sign it because such mines are essential to protect U.S. troops in hostile foreign locations.
Similarly, Canada vigorously promotes the International Criminal Court to prosecute the perpetrators of the evils done in Rwanda and Bosnia. President Clinton refused to send it to the Senate because he saw that the treaty could be used to prosecute American peacekeepers.
These treaties "intentionally undermine America's military equities" and "seem to represent a deeper and more dangerous decision by Canada's foreign-policy establishment to lead the international effort to hobble the American military."
This attitude should concern Americans greatly because Canadian and American forces are vastly intertwined in continental defense. On occasion, Canadian officers command American troops. Canadian plants produce American military vehicles. Sometimes, Canadian ships sail as part of American fleets.
Therefore, Americans "should not tolerate Canada seeking a leading role in the global coalition to thwart American power needed to protect U.S. citizens and interests. Canada has given up on warfare; it can afford to, though the U.S. cannot."
The final straw was the Martin government's decision last spring not to participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defense program. This shows that the time has come for Americans "to give Canada some attention and a bit of a warning."
"Canada is easy to squeeze. Military trade preferences for Canada should end. The tag-along trips and combat observation opportunities should stop." These might be "small steps," but if Canada "continues its international meddling at our expense and forgets its geography" further steps involving "even greater costs for Canada" should be taken. Canada should be made to "know where its economic prosperity originates."
Two points about this article need be noted. For one, it's more than a mere opinion piece. Coming from MIT's security studies group, it will be semi-official, one stage below a formal diplomatic warning. The fact that Ottawa has not yet not prompted some Canadian academic to respond to it is likewise significant.
The second point is this: To a degree probably unrealized in Washington – and Ottawa too, for that matter – two Canadas have long been developing – one centered in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, the other in the West. The bizarre antics of the former have become so offensive to the latter that discussions of some form of separation have become commonplace among responsible people, particularly in Calgary. In deciding how to respond to this Canadian phenomenon, Americans might bear this in mind.
Ted Byfield published a weekly news magazine in western Canada for 30 years and is now general editor of "The Christians," a 12-volume history of Christianity.
LOL....there are pockets of conservatives in Western WA, mainly near the military bases and on the islands!
Your wish list is pretty hefty :)
You want near your trade & major customers, near ski mountains, taxes low, right leaning neighbors, airport accessable, convenient to Canada border hopping visits,great university. Will weather factor in?
This reminds me of a conversation with a girl who was looking for "Mr. Right"....after hearing her requirements I suggested she not discount "Mr. Reasonably Close"
Seriously, hope you find a just right place!
grandma mac
And if you can't tell the difference between defending your country from an invasion (against the British in 1814, for example) and a quixotic foreign adventure launched by a mad emperor because of some harebrained "domino theory", condolences!
What if Clinton's foreign policy bumblings necessitated a draft? Would it be a "patriotic duty" to give your life for that modern-day Caligula? How were JFK/LBJ any different? My parents taught me that disobedience to tyrants is the will of God; my church taught me that thou shalt not kill. When were these updated?
Someone else (perhaps a poor black man with a family history of slavery) had to go to war in your place.
You might want to dust off your crystal ball: I was born in the 60s. Does that preclude me from having strong opinions on the draft?
Think about that for a minute while you burn a flag.
Watch yourself, NEWBIE.
Gee, that's swell! But here in America we have this irksome little thing called the 1st Amendment. What is it you're advocating exactly, roving death squads for all of us "lefties" who pine for a limited government in line with the vision of the founding fathers? Concentration camps for those of us who don't think the US should try to re-create the world in its own image?
I sleep at night thinking that the powers that be are actually promoting leftist journalism because they don't want the population urging them to overthrow the corrupt Saudi Family and their billions going partly into the pockets of all the politicians in the west.
You might want to keep your windows closed while you do all this entranced analysis. Maybe that idea came from your neighbour's dog (a la Berkowitz) or was beamed into your head via satellite. (Per Occam's razor, I'll just assume that L.S.D. is legal in Russia.)
When I say that I "sleep at night" thinking this...it means that the powers that be *could* stop the leftists if they only wanted to...
For a "conservative," you sure are fond of the good ol' "powers that be" surpressing free speech. Maybe a future Patriot Act, a Mega-Uff-Da-Deluxe Patriot Act will circumscribe that stuffy 1st Amendment for you. Why not start a preamble during your late-night musings, What Is To Be Done sounds catchy!
"Coming from MIT's security studies group, it [the article] will be semi-official.... Which is almost as bad as being on "double-secret probation.""
I love it! A “semi-official” college paper leading Americans in the idea of pilfering parts of Canada. What a joke! He must have some sort of cult like following to get anyone other than us dopes to read his stuff.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the author of this article posted this compost himself.
If Canadians are not happy with their country, they can split it into two countries. But they would have to form two Countries. We don’t need the 51st State of Canada.
"...Canada provided a refuge for American draft dodgers during the Vietnam War."
If the Canadians are serious about forming two governments and two counties, there might be a civil war in Canada. I would welcome Canadian's to America if they where Escaping from war. Consider it returning the favor. Send the women and children first.
Anchor Steam in San Francisco, brews the best beer.
The people Winston Churchill used the term "the High Cabal" for are still active. The good news is, their malignity is completely controlled by a God who looks on all their doings.
"For a "conservative," you sure are fond of the good ol' "powers that be" surpressing free speech"
There is a difference between a "First Amendment Right" and actively supporting the enemy in a time of war. Everyone knows that, in Vietnam and Iraq, the purpose of the enemy is to kill a few American soldiers and wait for American traitors to cry "we need to give up" which would cause a few thousand more uneducated female Americans to join the "liberal defeatist" cause, which would have made the killing of American soldiers worthwhile from the terrorist (and liberal) point of view, so it happens again and again and again.
To stop the cycle of terrorism (which includes the killing of US soldiers inside the now post-war Iraq), you have to have an atmosphere where each killing of US soldiers causes the US public to get angrier and to notch up the possibility of taking the war to Syria and Iran, not notch it down. If Syrian and Iranian terror leaders (government ministers) believe that the killing of Americans inside Iraq will cause Americans to *lose interest* in regime change in Syria and Iran...then there will be as much killing of Americans as possible. If these leaders felt the opposite, then Americans would be treated with respect and protected by the insurgents. This is obvious.
In fact, it is so obvious that I assume that the Bush Administration sees an advantage in letting left wing journalists work with the terrorists to turn the minds of the weakest Bush supporters (females with no college education), so the pressure to do something about Saudi Arabia is reduced.
If the leftists were really strategically dangerous to us, there would be a few disappearances and "accidents" befalling the most influential American traitors as happened often before 1969 in this country. As a child, I had a sense that RFK's death wasn't the end of democracy...but rather a correction for RFK's desire to let China continue in its aggression and take the other half of the world.
One has to wonder if Americans are taking seriously the fact that the American media is encouraging the killings of our troops in Iraq.
Look at the London bombings. They resulted in a net loss for the terrorists because of all the "free speech rights" the Muslim "imams" lost in Great Britain as a result. Why should the killings of civilians in the Tube have provoked more outrage than the killing of British soldiers while they were innocently helping with the rebuilding of a post-war democracy? Every dead US soldier should make the public more angry at Syria and Iran's leaders. If this were the case and journalists were able to measure it, the insurgency would stop cold.
But the Bush Administration, like the Johnson and Nixon administrations, feels the need to allow the true enemies to cross the border into our hot zone and kill our troops. I have never been able to fully understand why this is done. Except to reduce public pressure for taking the war to the real enemy. But how does this translate into real support for the troops in Iraq?
The other theory is the flypaper theory that you allow the true enemy to send fighters into the American zone so they can be killed off in large numbers. If, for instance, we have agents in Iran sending fighters by the busload into the waiting arms of our Special Forces...we would want Iran to continue to be our "enemy" for a long while, so we could drain them of their best and dumbest anti-American fighters.
Either way, we still have a proxy war going on now with a clueless left wing media pretending (again!) that we are being fought and beaten by local insurgents. Is it free speech for journalists to lie so baldly? Yes. But what is it when the conservative leadership continuously fails to call them on it? What is it when the conservative leadership might be setting things up so the majority of Americans end up believing the lie that we "lost" the Iraq War (after we gave Shiites control of the Middle East) like we supposedly lost the Vietnam War (after Nixon turned China)? Is it free speech if the left wing is actually being used a tool by the Bush Administration to help Sunni Arabs "save face" as they lose this war, like the Chinese were allowed to "save face" by the Americans "losing" the Vietnam War? Basically, is it really free speech if the conservative owners of the media hire only idiots to be their "journalists" and advise those idiots to pursue their foolish dreams of anti-Americanism in their reports?
In terms of the MSM, there is no such thing as free speech. We read and hear what the few media owners WANT us to hear, and if these owners WANT us to hear a bunch of pacifist whiners slowly eat at our will...then one has to ask: Who are these people who control the MSM and how would the Bush Administration benefit from the "slow the war down" mentality the MSM perpetuates?
Life is just one big compromise so no, we won't get everything on the wish list. However I'm figuring on getting the essential items and some of the big ones which are weighted high. Will weather factor in? Probably not at all as it's just not important in the grand scheme of things. Anyway, thanks for your suggestion on WA. I'm actually headed to Seattle on a business trip in a couple of weeks - I hadn't honestly considered it all that highly before but I'll have a harder look at it while I'm there. Are you from WA? Do you have any suggestions on where in WA to locate? Probably would have to be no more than an hour away from the Seattle airport.
Whidbey is gorgeous. We sprung a surprise 50th birthday party for a friend, at the Captain Whidbey Inn.
Whidbey Island NAS must be a great tour. Never got a chance to visit there when I was on active duty (different branch of the service, and stationed a few thousand miles to the west).
Whidbey is gorgeous...it is, isn't it? Hope you tried some Penn Cove mussells and loganberry wine.
I wish that every returning service member from Afghanistan & Iraq could be assigned here for a tour....there is just such an awe inspiring peace that settles on you. Maybe it is the friendly patriotic locals, the beautiful lonely beaches, the old growth forests that seem so primordial, the charming towns and farms, the sound of freedom as the NAS Whidbey planes zoom overhead...come back & visit!
If I knew you were comin, I'd a baked a cake :)
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org
A prediction of the engame of Canada.
Fair enough. How about "lying rat-bastards"? More than one president connived his way into office with the promise of avoiding war. Wilson won in 1916 on the platform, “He kept us out of war.” FDR: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” LBJ cynically promised not "to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." Democratically elected? Sure, and it makes me wonder if drawing straws would be a better way to go about it.
I am sure that more than a few questioned their President's rationale for the war they were fighting in. However, they all did their duty.
American soldiers had a "duty" to die in a European war for Wilson's feverish delusions and Britain's shameless propaganda? For what, making the world safe for communism & fascism? Conscience trumps "lawful duty" when the law is insane. Good thing the American revolutionaries didn't do their "duty" and obey the king.
I was born in the 1960's as well. What is your point?
Just responding to your post #16, which implied that I avoided conscription.
A man who would run away from a draft and country in war time is not a real threat to anyone.
That depends on which war; and which man.
British Canada was a stand-up ally.
Now it's controlled by the French Canadians and everything that goes with being French.
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.