DescentBB

I saw an interview tonight with a law professor from Canada. He forwarded the following logic:

1. For a war to be legal, it must be launched in accord with the dictates of the United Nations charter -and- it must be approved by the UN Security Council.

2. The UN charter allows for wars of self-defense.

3. The USA had no right of self-defense in its attack on Afghanistan. He claims that was a "retaliatory" attack.

4. Because the removal of the Taliban was "retaliatory", the war was illegal.

5. During an illegal war, every death counts (by international law) as a murder.

6. President Bush and Colin Powell should be indicted as wars criminals of the first order, mass murderers.


With all due respect to Canada, if this is what passes for university-level thinking up there, your society is in serious trouble.


In rebuttal, I present the following evidence.

United Nations Charter, Chapter I, Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.


United Nations Charter, Chapter VII, Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


* In 1993, Al Qaeda, a stateless network of radical Islamic fundamentalists, launched an armed attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. They detonated a truck bomb in the lower levels of one of the buildings, with the express intent of toppling that building over on to its twin and knocking them both to the ground. The attack failed to achieve all of its goals but did inflict terror, death and destruction.

* In 1998, Al Qaeda issued a public declaration of war on the United States of America. The declaration was issued by their leader, Usama Bin Laden.

* By what right of international law did this stateless network hold legal dispute with the United States? None. This war declaration was not legal, nor were any of the armed attacks perpetrated by this terrorist organization.

* In 1998, Al Qaeda conducted simultaneous armed attacks on US soil, on the continent of Africa, in the location of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Hundreds of people were slain.

* In 2000, Al Qaeda conducted an armed naval attack on a US Warship anchored peacefully in Yemen, the USS Cole. The ship was incapacitated and more than a dozen US sailors were killed.

* On September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda launched an armed attack on four US commercial airliners, hijacking them with the express intent of turning them into missiles and decapitating the United states with simulatenous missile strikes on our economic, military and governmental nerve centers. Three of the four planes struck their targets, resulting in the complete destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City, and in significant loss of life and property and functionality at the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The US Capitol building and our legislative bodies were spared harm when the fourth airliner was brought down by a revolt of the passengers onboard against the hijackers, when the passengers learned over their cell phones of the other airliners being flown into buildings. All life on board was snuffed out on impact, in a field in western Pennsylvania. Nearly 3000 Americans died in this attack, most of them at the World Trade Center.

* Shortly after September 11, US Intelligence services pinpointed Al Qaeda as the source of the attack, including obtaining videotape evidence of Usama Bin Laden personally bragging to compatriots about planning the 9/11 attack and how some of the hijackers did not know the nature of their mission when they boarded the planes, because operational security was kept so tight.

* On September 20, 2001, the President of the United States, in an address to a joint session of Congress, declared the Bush Doctrine: states who harbor networks of international terrorists will be held to account. Those who refuse to cooperate with bringing terrorists to justice, but who instead work to protect the terrorists and thwart justice, will be viewed in the eyes of America as equally guilty as the terrorists themselves. "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists."

* The President twice sought a resolution from the UN Security Council, declaring the September 11 attack an "armed attack". The UN Security Council refused to so declare. Thus the UN abrogated its responsibility according to its own charter. I refer you back to Article 1, of which the Taliban government was in gross violation on every point. On point number one, the Taliban harbored and succored a stateless network conducting an illegal war against the United States; this network proved itself both aggressive and a threat to international peace. On point number two, the Taliban did not subscribe to notions of equal rights, neither for states nor individuals. On point number three, the Taliban was in gross violation of all elements, among which included displaying the most barbarous treatment of women of any nation on the planet. On point number four, the Taliban stood in direct disdain of the international community, ignoring all pleas from other states and peoples not to destroy the thousands-of-years-old Bhuddist statues in the cliffs of eastern Afghanistan. IN EVERY WAY, the Taliban stood against everything the UN was founded to champion, yet the corrupt UN Security Council, with certain members swayed more by their own self-interest than in upholding the UN Charter, declined to accept its responsibility toward the ends of enforcing its security responsibilities.

* In October of 2001, President Bush moves forward without UN approval, obeying his oath of office to protect and defend the United States of America. Bush issued demands to the Taliban government: turn over Al Qaeda. The Taliban was given a reasonable period of time in which to comply, including a clear message as to what would happen to them if they refused.

* The Taliban called the President's bluff. Problem for them was, Bush was not bluffing. The Taliban was removed in an operation dominated by US Special Forces, in concert with Afghan allies on the ground, in a matter of mere weeks. Al Qaeda's base of operations was disrupted.


Our friend from Canada, this law professor, is in error on one critical point: the American attack on Afghanistan was legal.

If the UN Security Council were, in good faith, doing the job for which it was created, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately, the UN has never lived up to its full potential. The ideals of common cause often take a back seat to the particular interests of member states, especially those on the Security Council who enjoy permanent seats and veto power.

The ideals of the UN are noble, but in practice the performance leaves much to be desired.

I have additional evidence to provide in the form of specific lessons from the September 11 attacks and specific principles in regard to the notion of self-defense, which are relevant in rebutting the good professor from Canada. Rather than rewrite these in my own words, I will borrow the relevant portion of them from The Heritage Foundation. I refer you to the subsequent post.


- Sirian

Presidential Authority in the War on Terrorism

The President of the United States has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people from threats, both foreign and domestic. He is vested by the Constitution with the authority and responsibility to accomplish this essential task. In taking his oath of office, the President swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," the Preamble of which makes providing for the "common defense" a top priority. Congress must now make its voice heard on a key issue of national security and bring to a vote support for President George W. Bush's strategy for pursuing the war on terrorism in the way that he, as commander in chief, deems necessary.

As the nature of the threats to the United States changes, so must the nation's approach to its defense. To fulfill his constitutional responsibility, the President must have the flexibility to address these threats as they emerge; and, given the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by nations hostile to America, in an increasing number of cases, this may require applying military power before the United States or its interests are struck. In situations where the evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that behavioral trends, capability, and motives all point to imminent threat, it may be necessary for the President to attack preemptively.

While there has been little argument over the use of armed force in Afghanistan to retaliate against an act of aggression, preemptive action is also clearly justifiable because the following principles apply:

PRINCIPLE #1: The right to self-defense is codified in customary international law and in the charter of the United Nations. The most basic expression of a nation's sovereignty is action taken in self-defense. Traditional international law recognizes that right, and the United Nations Charter is wholly consistent with it. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

PRINCIPLE #2: The right of "anticipatory self-defense" allows for preemptive strikes. The right to self-defense incorporates the principle of anticipatory self-defense, which is particularly salient in the war on terrorism. The reality of international life in the 21st century is that nations or organizations that wish to challenge America or Western powers increasingly are seeking weapons of mass destruction to achieve their political objectives. The only effective response may be to destroy those capabilities before they are used. The tenet of traditional, customary international law that allows for this preventive or preemptive action is "anticipatory self-defense."

An oft-cited incident that validates the practice of anticipatory self-defense as part of international law occurred in 1837. That year, British forces crossed into American territory to destroy a Canadian ship, anticipating that the ship would be used to support an anti-British insurrection. The British government claimed its actions were necessary for self-defense, and the United States accepted that explanation.

While there is debate as to whether or not this principle of international law survived the adoption of the U.N. Charter, the fact is that neither the charter nor the actions of member states since the charter came into force outlaw the principle. Israel has invoked the right of anticipatory self-defense numerous times throughout its history, including incidents in 1956 when it preemptively struck Egypt and in 1967 when it struck Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as those nations were preparing an attack.

The United States has also asserted its right to anticipatory self-defense. A classic example occurred in 1962 when President John Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba--a clear act of aggression--during the Cuban missile crisis. Although no shots had been fired, President Kennedy's preemptive action was imperative for the protection of American security. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan invoked this right at least twice: first, in 1983, when he ordered an invasion of Grenada to protect U.S. nationals from potential harm, and again in 1986, when he ordered the bombing of terrorist sites in Libya.

When any nation that is overtly hostile to America or its allies is developing weapons of mass destruction, has ties to international terrorist, and intelligence data give reason to believe that there is an intent to attack, the threshold of the United States' right to invoke a response based on anticipatory self-defense has clearly been passed.

PRINCIPLE #3: The United States government alone has the authority to determine what constitutes a threat to its citizens and what should be done about it. Under the U.S. Constitution, the authority to determine when it is appropriate for the United States to invoke and exercise its right to use military force in its own defense is vested in the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, and Congress, which has authority to raise and support armies and to declare war. No treaty, including the U.N. Charter, can redistribute this authority or give an international organization veto power over U.S. actions that would otherwise be lawful and fully in accord with the Constitution.

PRINCIPLE # 4: The President as commander in chief has the authority to use America's armed forces to "provide for the common defense." The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war but makes the President commander in chief. Since the birth of the nation, this division of power has given rise to tension between the executive and legislative branches of government regarding who can authorize the use of force.

Debate regarding this matter gave rise to the War Powers Resolution, which states that the President can use force to protect the nation without congressional authorization for 60 to 90 days. Many, including every President since this resolution came into force in 1973, have regarded the document as unconstitutional. Most, however, agree that the President has the authority to defend America from attack, even in the absence of congressional authorization. It should be noted that if Congress is truly opposed to any military action authorized by the President, it has the power to defund that mission, making it impossible to carry out.


Learning From the September 11 Attacks

The President is justified in applying preemptive military force to fight the war on terrorism. To fail to do so in spite of a threat of imminent attack would be to ignore the lessons learned from September 11 regarding the nature of the threats that face America in the 21st century. Before those attacks, U.S. authorities were aware of Osama bin Laden, his resources, and his hatred for America. They knew that he was a terrorist and that he had attacked America in the past. They were also aware that he was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan with the blessing of the Taliban regime. Despite this information, neither the United States nor the international community took decisive action to address bin Laden's imminent aggression.

In the post-September 11 world, such complacency is not acceptable. A series of lessons can be learned from the September 11 attacks and the initial prosecution of the war on terrorism. These lessons must be taken into consideration when future action against terrorists and terrorist states is contemplated.

LESSON #1: Deterrence alone is not sufficient to suppress aggression. Both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban could have predicted that the United States would respond to their attacks, yet they acted anyway. Although numerous reports and studies warned of the growing threat of catastrophic terrorism, the United States, for the most part, ignored those warnings. The activities of a worldwide, organized terrorist network were treated instead as criminal behavior.

The conclusion of recent studies has been that the risk of America's being struck with a weapon of mass destruction has increased: In other words, the effectiveness of deterrence has decreased. Such massive acts of terrorism could be perpetrated by an organization acting alone, an organization working with a nation, or a nation acting alone. It would be nearly impossible to deter all of these hostile entities, given that each state and each organization has a different motivation.

LESSON #2: Attacks can occur with little or no warning. The emergence of global communications, advances in technology, and the globalization of terrorism have significantly decreased the time it takes not only for a potential threat to be identified, but also for that threat to emerge as an act of aggression. In many instances, a specific threat may not be identified until the act of aggression has taken place, rendering preventive measures irrelevant.

In this world of drastically shortened time lines, it is essential that the President have the authority to act decisively, in short order, to defeat aggressors when a preponderance of information points to a threat of imminent attack. For example, although the President did not have information that al-Qaeda operatives were going to commandeer four passenger jets and use them as guided cruise missiles, there was ample evidence that threats to the United States would likely emerge from Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda, an organization responsible for past attacks on America, was present and supported by the Taliban.

LESSON #3: The use of a weapon of mass destruction is reasonably likely. On September 11, Americans were killed on a massive scale. Hostile entities increasingly view weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as political assets. North Korea may have two nuclear weapons; Iran has active chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs; and Iraq has not only active WMD programs, but also a history of using such weapons. All three countries have ballistic and cruise missile programs.

Even terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda, are involved in developing and using WMD, as was evidenced by recently revealed videos in which al-Qaeda was experimenting with chemical weapons on dogs. Other reports link Osama bin Laden to the pursuit of a nuclear or radiological device. In 1995, terrorists in Japan used sarin gas to kill civilians in a Tokyo subway.

LESSON #4: A deadly synergy is created when hostile state and non-state agents conspire. While hostile states continue to threaten America and its interests, the threat of non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda, is growing. The danger increases when states and non-state actors work together. States have resources--including territory, finances, an international diplomatic presence, and trade--that non-state actors do not have. On the other hand, non-state actors are able to operate globally and can act largely undetected.

The reality of the 21st century is that a state like Iraq can harness its resources to develop a weapon of mass destruction and collude with non-state actors to deliver that weapon. This symbiotic relationship can operate undercover, possibly without the knowledge of the American government. Thus, a state hostile to the United States may appear to be acting within the bounds of normal diplomatic behavior while at the same time covertly supporting aggressive endeavors of its non-state allies.

LESSON #5: The future envisioned by America's enemies is incompatible with U.S. security. Prior to September 11, "soft diplomacy"--including multilateral arms control, aid incentives, and appeals to reason--was the preferred approach in dealing with hostile regimes. Although the ideals of those regimes and those of the West are in direct contrast, there was hope that, eventually, these despots would transform, fall, or simply discontinue their threatening activities. This policy continued as the approach of choice even though it has been demonstrably ineffective.

On September 11, however, the idea that such hostile regimes and the United States could simultaneously pursue their respective interests lost all credibility. It was clear that America's enemies were willing to use unprovoked violence to achieve their objectives. The United States could no longer postpone acting against terrorists and nations that support them.


- Jack Spencer
© 1995 - 2004 The Heritage Foundation
All Rights Reserved.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1600.cfm

Sirian wrote:I saw an interview tonight with a law professor from Canada.

I enjoyed reading both posts, including your analysis of the U.N. Charter. It's disturbing that at the time of its most critical need, the U.N. seems poised on the chasm of irrelevance, while at the same time we find it's riddled with corruption. The U.N. took a giant stride into the vapor when it passed 1441, then chose not to enforce it, in my mind.

As for the 1)law 2)professor from 3)Canada, well, I suppose he had two* out of three strikes against him before he even started the interview.

BD

*Diplomacy prevents me from holding he had three strikes against him, but I thought my solution was kind of clever.**

**On reflection, being clever shouldn't include having to point it out to others. I retract my earlier postscript.

Ymamoto's portrayed statement in the movie Tora!Tora!Tora!, "" I canâ??t think of anything that will infuriate the Americans more... all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve..." (while more than likely a hollywood script writers creative license) was preceded by a more appropriate statement of regarding Americans as luxury loving and crass. This was held by Yamamoto's character as fallacy.
Point here is Canada has never been attacked on Her shores in modern times. For a Canadian to take America or any country to task for pre-emptive action after being attacked as being illegal shows a naivete' that only the truely coddled can exhibit. As Sirians post points out, by fiat the Afghan govt. was responsible for 9/11 by tacilty allowing A.Q. to operate (some say control) freely within their borders. Even the French took part in the Afghan war (so I guess that makes it really legit).
Iraq may be a different kettle of fish, but there was the famous U.N. resolution proclaiming "serious consequences" if Iraq did not fully comply with WMD inspections. Iraq did not comply and the U.S. carried out the U.N. mandate. So it would look as though the good professor should perhaps hang up his jurisprudence jock strap and perhaps take Jason Blairs vacated post at the New York Times.

3. The USA had no right of self-defense in its attack on Afghanistan. He claims that was a "retaliatory" attack.

Is not a retaliatory attack the very definition of self defence when the origanal aggressor says it will not stop untill we are destroyed?

Sirian,I enjoy reading your post. If I may ask what is your occupation? You seem very inteligent,and I really like your throughness of your post.

Just to follow up on forrest's post:

I think the title of your post is misleading and put together with the content it turns into the posting equivalant of a sucker punch.

In my opinion, most of your posts are far too long and fragmented by quotes and lists for a BB format. Look to your conservative brethren Woodchip and Will Robinson for excellent models of BB writing style. Your grammar and word choice are good though (far and away better than mine!), so if you make a few changes you'll get even more admirers.

Oh geeze.

sheepdog wrote:I think the title of your post is misleading and put together with the content it turns into the posting equivalant of a sucker punch.

I do believe that was the intention: to brutally smack the opposition before they arrived. Just look at the post above mine.

I can't believe you thought this guys opinion was worth a rebuttal.

Ford Prefect wrote:I can't believe you thought this guys opinion was worth a rebuttal.

Well FP, Americans know squat about Canadian politics and Canadian politicians. I went to a sheepdog trial last month in Ontario (Windsor?)and a fellow handler and I got to talking about Michael Moore. He pointed out to me that while he agreed with Moore's anti-Bush message, he thought that Moore was remarkably ill-informed about Canadian politics in that Moore was out there supporting the liberal party in B.C. This gentleman's take was that the liberal party in Canada is very corrupt...

edit: I probably should have said "the liberal party in British Columbia", see Ford Perfect's reply immediately following!

Being a typical American, I haven't enough knowledge to agree or disagree with his view of the liberal party, but I think it supports your point with regard to Syrian's post.

he thought that Moore was remarkably ill-informed about Canadian politics in that Moore was out there supporting the liberal party in B.C.

Quite so Sheepdog because the Liberal party of B.C. is very right of center. I know the Federal Liberal party is left of center but the connnection between the two is little more than name. Those who support the Federal Liberal party are traditionaly the supporters of the B.C. New Democratic Party who are very left of center even for Canadian politics.

Canada in general is politically left of the U.S. For example polls showed that if Canadians were voting in the U.S. election it would have been 66% for Kerry with only 17% supporting Bush. In spite of this clear difference in politics Canada is very dependent on the U.S. for trade and defense. No matter that some wish it was not so. 30% of the GDP is trade with the U.S. and the trade deficit heavily favours Canada. When we see the following things:

1) A widening seperation between the political goals of the U.S. and Canada.
2) The U.S. becoming more and more intent on forcing it's way of thinking on the rest of the world.
3) The U.S. ingoring the North American Free Trade Agreement and punishing Canadian imports.

Canadians feel threatened by the current run of events in the U.S. and when threatened many people react badly and wish to strike back some how.
That is one of the reasons you get clowns like this proffessor trying to stir up ill will between the two contries.

Just write the guy off as a loud mouthed sh**t disturber.

And tune in the CBC news once and a while. Canada is the largest trading partner of the U.S. by a huge margin. We are interdependent you know.

Excellent post FP. Very informative. Thank you.

Frod, why specifically do you believe the Canadians feel threatened?

Glad you asked that Bash:

Economically â??Here is where the U.S. carries the Big Stick. One example is the softwood lumber dispute. In spite of the traditional free trade position of the Republican Party and the defeat of the U.S. position in venue after venue the duties are still being collected and now there are noises of distributing the collected duties in the U.S. before the U.S. is forced to return them. When it comes to money the U.S. always sides for the U.S. to Canadaâ??s loss. Soon our supply side control of eggs, poultry and milk may come under fire.

Militarily- There is no threat of an armed invasion. That is just silly. But the Big Stick may be used to force Canada to accept the Missile defense plan where we have nothing to contribute but territory and due to geography nothing to gain from it in the unlikely chance it actually works. We may also be force to participate in actions such as the invasion of Iraq that we donâ??t agree with. We went willingly and without regrets in to Afghanistan but Iraq is another matter in the mind of the Canadian citizen.

Culturally- The U.S. entertainment industry is making noises about trying to eliminate the exemption for cultural material from NAFTA. If we lose control enforced Canadian content of magazines and television how long will the small population of Canada maintain it cultural distinction?

Territorially- Global warming is making the Arctic area of Canada both more accessible and more desirable. The U.S. shows more and more its willingness to force other nations to accept their wishes. Canadaâ??s claim to the Arctic is tenuous and we do not have the military resources to enforce our sovereignty. Should the U.S. decide to use the Arctic Ocean for transporting Alaskan oil or some other reason they may simply override our claim to control of the area and itâ??s resources. The precedent has been set when an Icebreaker oil tanker was sent through the Northwest Passage a few decades ago without asking for Canadian permission.

There are many more examples and much more detail to each item and I am not the best spokesman for Canadian politics but maybe this gives you an idea that all is not sweetness and light between our nations.

Ford Prefect wrote:The U.S. entertainment industry is making noises about trying to eliminate the exemption for cultural material from NAFTA. If we lose control enforced Canadian content of magazines and television how long will the small population of Canada maintain it cultural distinction?

I don't know about you but I've always considered that censorship, not protection of cultural identity. Every radio station in Canada is required to play at least 30% Canadian content (written by, performed by, or otherwise created by a Canadian). Isn't that considered forcing a cultural perspective? Such a law would never fly here, though it's not really necessary since almost all successful channels here are damn-near entirely American in content.

forrest wrote:Sirian,I enjoy reading your post. If I may ask what is your occupation?

I'm a writer.

http://www.sirian.org

sheepdog wrote:I think the title of your post is misleading and put together with the content it turns into the posting equivalant of a sucker punch.

What title do you suggest I should have used?

sheepdog wrote:In my opinion, most of your posts are far too long and fragmented by quotes and lists for a BB format.

You're entitled to that opinion.

sheepdog wrote:if you make a few changes you'll get even more admirers.

I'm not seeking admirers, nor detractors, nor anything other than to forward my opinions and participate in discussions. I appreciate the criticism. You are right; I could stand to be more pithy. Trying to find the right balance between depth and brevity is never easy, but my opinion of how much depth a particular topic warrants is formed based on what I know and see. That may differ from how things look from where you sit.

Keep in mind, I am not always speaking to the entire audience. I reject the notion that one must address the lowest common denominator.

Ask around. My posts today are more compact and concise than they once were.


- Sirian

Skyalmian wrote:I do believe that was the intention: to brutally smack the opposition before they arrived.

Whom have I brutally smacked? Please describe the brutality. Be specific.

Where are my arguments in error? Please point out the flaws and make your corrections. I welcome any responsible reply.

Bold Deceiver wrote:The U.N. took a giant stride into the vapor when it passed 1441, then chose not to enforce it, in my mind.

Some who voted for that resolution never intended to enforce it. They signed on to buy more time for Saddam. They believed they would be able to stonewall at a second resolution.

A fundamental disagreement exists between member states as to the purpose and function of the UN.

The USA made one critical error in the original conception of the UN: granting equal status to all sovereign nations. That Cameroon and Uruguay have voting power equal to Canada and Germany is unfair and unbalanced. That the USA, being united states, gets one vote, while Europe, being a divided continent, is rewarded with dozens of votes, is out of whack. Individuals are created equal, but states are not, and so the concept was doomed from the outset. The only mitigating factor is the makeup of the security council, with the five permanent voting members.

France has lost its imperialist holdings around the world and is no longer a major power. French has been replaced by English as the world's predominant language, and the internet is fast accelerating this shift. France lost its holdings in Asia and Africa, sparked a dastardly war between Israel and Egypt in a bald attempt to seize the Suez canal, and no longer warrants a permanent seat on the Security Council. The French still have nuclear weapons, but that is their last best claim to political significance, unless their effort to take the lead in the European Union should work out to their benefit.

France should be out, and in with Japan and India. That Japan does not have a permanent seat on the Council is an outright affront to logic. That the UN is unable and unwilling to adapt to changing times in the makeup of its balances of power is only further evidence of its inability to live up to its Charter.

The UN is an evolotionary dead end. Unlike the US Constitution, it has not proven effective at reforming its own flaws and shortcomings. At this point it seems clear that the UN must be torn down before we can erect something better in its place. I don't think we are ready for that. The world is not ready for that. The evidence is clear. We will have to ride this one out for a bit longer.

UN Resolution 1441 and its fallout are only the tip of the iceberg. Most of the UN's problems lie beneath the surface. If that institution is to survive in any relevant capacity, it must expose itself to full transparency. Covering up the Oil For Food scandal is the real watershed. The UN will live or die on how it responds to that crisis.


There was one more suggestion made by the good law professor from Canada. He suggested that if we will not abide by international law (as he sees it), that we are welcome to withdraw from the United Nations.

It may yet come down to that, but not for the reasons he cited.


- Sirian

There is no doubt that Canadian Content regulations are a two edged sword. But look at our location next to this enormous cultural pressure generator. Without some controls we would be swamped in no time. Most nations have some kind of cultural controls to protect the local product it is just that Canada is so similar to the U.S. that many don't realize there are differences that most here feel should be maintained.
The U.S. of course needs no such controls as it is by far the largest cultural exporter in the world. I do hear a squeek or two from areas such as Southern California which has such a heavy influence from Hispanic culture.

How is Canadian culture radically different from American culture? We're the same European-based culture on different sides of a border. We produce the same crappy pop stars, the same art, the same smells when we fart. The United States isn't actively threatening Canadian culture, and if American culture swamps other cultures it's because that's what the people want.

Dcrazy I will repeat that polls showed that 66% of Canadians supported Kerry while only 17% supported Bush. Clearly there are differences and a loss of that identity would be one large step closer to becoming a part of the U.S.
There is not a "radical" difference and the true nature of that difference is a subject of endless debate here in Canada. The clearest difference that is always brought up is that we "are not American" if that can be said to be a definition.
No nation wishes to lose it's identity and be absorbed by another without a trace.

Ford wrote:I can't believe you thought this guys opinion was worth a rebuttal.

The man is a tenured college professor. He forwards a view that sounds remarkably similar to the PREVAILING view in Europe and perhaps in Canada. Even you share some of his sentiments, only expressed with less radical word selection.

Did you know that a French author has penned a book theorizing that September 11 attacks were perpetrated by the US government to forge a pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq to claim their oil? Did you know that this book has sold over a million copies? There are people around the world today who have decided that America is the bad guy, and they seek "evidence" to back that up, without regard to the validity of any such "evidence".

I'm sorry to say, this is an old pattern, one that alarms me greatly when I see it arise in the heart of Europe. Germans didn't need valid evidence to persecute the Jews. They eagerly embraced the logic of "genetic superiority", despite evidence shown them to the contrary. Copernicus? Galileo? Europeans have a long history of willingness to believe what they want to believe, without regard to the facts. That is why American ancestors fled that continent in search of a fresh start. Most of those who fled were the persecuted, the poor, the disadvantaged, the mutts and misfits and outcasts. That the descendants of that lot now hold the strongest position on the globe is deeply offensive to European sensibilities. In their minds, that can't possibly be correct. The Americans must be succeeding by preying on the rest of the world, taking unfair advantage of others. Now this logic is being carried further. America is in their sights, and views of the quality forwarded by our good professor fill the European echo chambers, gaining volume by the month.

Of course the good professor's opinion is worth rebutting. Why wouldn't it be? It's important to treat these kinds of assertions with respect, because any show of disrespect will be trumpeted as validation. If we meet faulty logic with clear answers and winning arguments, then we might persuade some folks to rethink these issues.

Ford wrote:Just write the guy off as a loud mouthed sh**t disturber.

That's what we did with Usama Bin Laden for ten years.

There's also this thing called free speech. If we write him off, he retaliates by writing us off, and there are some who will listen to that. Far better to air his views and rebut them. Dismissing those with whom you disagree strongly is not a winning strategy. The better move is engagement. Let the strongest argument prevail. Put each side's logic to the test and see what happens.


- Sirian

Ford wrote:And tune in the CBC news once and a while. Canada is the largest trading partner of the U.S. by a huge margin. We are interdependent you know.

So let's talk about Canada.

I've been to Canada, once. I traveled with a good friend to Guelph, in Ontario, not far from Toronto. That was hardly deep into Canadian territory, but then, most of your population lives in the southern slice of your territory, anyway. Only a few hardy souls up in the territories, eh?

I was struck by a number of things during my visit. The first and foremost was the sheer number of things that were different. No skyscrapers, lots of suburban sprawl. Even in the cities, no tall buildings. Lots and I do mean LOTS of smoke stacks spewing thick smoke along the highway. (Looked like Pittsburgh used to look fifteen or twenty years earlier.) The air smelled dirtier. Sorry, no offense intended. Maybe that was peculiar to the areas I visited. Wasn't a lot of ground.

I went during the winter, actually, so it quite cold. Everyone I visited had their heat turned up to levels I found uncomfortable. (The notion of Canadians as cold weather macho went right out the window!) The people were all very nice. There was an atmosphere akin to the friendliest small towns in America: no need to lock the doors, etc, folks smile at you on the street and wave. It's not like that in the big cities here. Metric system was everywhere, and that did remind me I was in an alien place. I thought that would have less impact, since I am comfortable with metrics and understand them completely, but just the constant reminding of it had an impact on me.

Bags of milk? The Looney? Referring to USA as "the States". "Down in the States" this and that and the other. Differences in traffic lights. Differences in traffic, even. No heavy traffic flows anywhere I went. More people walking, even in winter.

The most striking difference, however, was an almost religious mantra being repeated over and over: how Canada is the best place on earth. This was so predominant, it struck me like an American ad campaign, like a slogan, like a jingle, except not quite with the same phony, concocted feel to it. Nevertheless, it was pervasive. Some Canadians were laid back about it, but others seemed compelled to tell me, on learning that I was American, about how great Canada was. There seemed to be an expectation on the part of some that I would argue with them. I have no idea why. This thing was clearly important to them, though.


By contrast, I can tell you, nobody in America is doing that for visitors, guests and immigrants to our country. This is not something we have to sell. Folks come to their own conclusions. Opinions will differ.

Most Americans don't even know each other. We would find it odd for folks in Virginia to insist to visitors from Montana that Virginia is the best place on earth. Virginians might boast of certain assets unique to their state, or certain industries where they lead, or certain other sites and traits, etc, but the idea that one state is better than another just isn't part of us. We're in this thing together.

Oddly enough, I think most Americans view Canada in a similar way. We know you folks have your own way of doing things. That's great. Down here, we have fifty different ways of doing things, though, so the idea that you're "smaller but better" will only emit a chuckle. With all due respect, it comes off as a bit compensatory. Why would you think that the options are better or worse? How about equal? No?

My trip to Guelph was for the purpose of obtaining my friend's dual citizenship. He had moved to Canada briefly. His mother is from there, a native of an Indian tribe. His father's from West Virginia. He lived in Canada long enough to want to claim his dual citizenship, a birthright more or less. The ceremony was cheerful and positive. It was also laced with the most assertive example of "Canada is the best place on earth".

At the time, I figured that everybody ought to feel that way about their home country, or else they are in the wrong place. I have no beef with that view. But as the years go by, I wonder more and more at what I experienced. I find no reason for people to be jealous of America, nor intimidated by our successes.

I think that our size may be misinterpreted by some as a form of arrogance. We have such diversity within our own ranks that we have more than enough content to explore within our own borders. That the bulk of Americans are disinterested in other lands and other cultures and other experiences is not intended to be a slight, nor is it narcisistic. There ARE lots of Americans who are curious and interested about other nations, and we pour tourism dollars into more places than does any other people. Still, there is a clear imbalance culturally. We tend to ignore others, while others (for a variety of reasons) are unable to ignore us. This divide seems to read to some as a form of elitism. Instead, I think it is a cultural disconnect. You don't understand America as well as you think, and you often see only the commercial side of our culture, where businesses are reaching out to your markets, while the core of our culture is busy with its business at home. You don't get the whole picture.

Is that our fault? Perhaps in part. Folks like you, Ford, are interacting with Americans through the internet. You see into our diversity, including the freedoms that allow for more misbehaviors than is rightfully healthy. (I think American racism toward Koreans being exhibited on the net in gaming is doing more harm than anybody realizes. And yet there are no American leaders taking charge, setting better examples, and the problem is allowed to grow because there's no direct money in reforming it! Yikes. Yes, our ways do have their flaws!)

Sometimes individual Americans set a very poor example, and we don't do enough to police our own. All that we can do is to exert peer pressure, to lead by example, to set higher standards and lead folks to adopt them, to behave better. In our defense, however, the same is true on all sides.

Ford wrote:2) The U.S. becoming more and more intent on forcing it's way of thinking on the rest of the world.

This is where you seem to agree in principle with the good professor. Even our friends claim that we are bullying them, strong-arming them. We are just being ourselves. When we move as a nation, does the whole world shift? It doesn't have to, at least in theory. In practice, I'm not so sure. Financial markets, the huge amounts of international investment into American assets, the cultural predominance of our art forms, our military might, our political will, our moral authority arising out of victories in both world wars and the cold war... Has America's leadership moved so far ahead of everyone else that you feel that you are forced to follow no matter what? That you get dragged along against your will?

Even if that were true, it is not the same as forcing our will upon you.


- Sirian

Well the first thing I should point out Sirian is that I married an American woman from a group of friends I had in Seattle 19 years ago. She moved up here to the Vancouver area. My three children are registered as American Nationals of a Forign Birth and are entitled to full U.S. citizenship on their 18th birthday. My mother-in-law and one of my brothers-in-law live in L.A. The other brother-in-law lives in Colorado Springs where he is a vice president of Focus on the Family. Most of my wife's religeous and Republican relatives live in South Dakota where we have taken our children to visit for the Fourth of July holliday a couple of times. The company I work for sells 75% of it's product into the U.S., has a U.S. manufacturing plant where I have worked and as part of my job I travel to a variety of U.S. destinations. I have visited Dallas, Chicago, Boston, Spokane, Los Angles, San Fransico, Cleaveland, Houston and a variety of small towns.

This by no means makes me an expert on Canada/U.S. relations but I do know a bit more than just internet contacts.

When your biggest trading partner tells you to toe the line or face sanctions that would destroy your country I would call that being forced as opposed to dragged along behind brilliant leadership. There was a time when U.S./Canadian relations were more a negotiation between free countries. In the last few years it has become more listening to the dictates of the neighbourhood bully.

I appreciate your comments and enjoy reading them with one exception. The U.S. did not win

victories in both world wars and the cold war

In the first world war in particular the U.S. played almost no part. Joining after the majority of the slaughter was over so that they could be part of the dividing up of the old Prussian and Ottoman Empires.
Please study the facts of that war a bit. Canada with a population of approx. 5 million people put a half million men into the slaughterhouse of trench warfare losing 120,000 casualties almost 60,000 dead. Whole towns lost all their men to a senseless, stupid war of imperialism. But we count that time as when we became a nation.
In the second world war Canada stood with Britain and her allies against the threat of the invasion of Britain with much needed goods and equipment from the U.S. and repelled the Germans in the Battle of Britain long before the U.S. joined the war after the attack on Pearl Harbour. Canadian soldiers fought and died on Juno beach on June 6 the same as the brave soldiers of the U.S. on their own beaches.
Sorry if I seem touchy on this subject but my 91 year old father is a vetran of the second world war. He gave 4 years of his life to defend a country only connected to his by tradition. I hate to see his sacrifice and the sacrifice of so many Britains and Canadians belittled as irrelevant. We have earned just as much "moral authority" as the U.S. with the blood of our citizens.

Sirian wrote:I saw an interview tonight with a law professor from Canada. He forwarded the following logic:

1. For a war to be legal, it must be launched in accord with the dictates of the United Nations charter -and- it must be approved by the UN Security Council.

Wasn't the attack on Afganistan sanction by the council?

And which college?

Ford wrote:There was a time when U.S./Canadian relations were more a negotiation between free countries.

Sanctions that would destroy your country? Isn't that a bit exagerated?

Negotiations are serious business. I have not ever negotiated a financial deal where either side would have accepted the deal on ANY terms offered. There is always the chance that a deal will fail, if the two sides are unable to agree on an arrangement considered fair by both sides. Making clear that you will walk away from the table and choose nothing rather than accept terms you consider unfair and unacceptable is par for the course. Also essential is establishing good faith and making your case effectively.

Are you claiming that the USA should not have the right to withdraw its interactions with your country if we are unable to agree on fair terms? Or is it that lately we have not been agreeing anyway, but you have been taking what you consider to be a raw deal because it was the only game in town? I'm not sure I buy that. You may have legitimate points on your side of the disagreement, but I know that my side also has legitimate concerns.

Ford wrote:In the last few years it has become more listening to the dictates of the neighbourhood bully.

I would bet cash that American negotiators have had it up to their eyeballs with that claim.

I know the dangers of living in a Microsoft world. If any one source has too much of a stake in the market, abuses will arise, unfair practices may occur, and hard feelings develop. I accept that my nation or some of its duly elected/appointed representatives have struck a few nerves. When it comes to negotiating, we are chiefly interested in obtaining a fair shake. You may not agree with us on what is fair, and you may find it UNFAIR that we can better afford to walk away from certain deals than you can, giving us more leverage than you would prefer, but that isn't our fault.

There is a widening double standard developing, and it flows along the same kind of thinking that liberals in my country exhibit: class warfare, down with the rich, the big guy is evil, let's all drag him down into the muck.

Offenses by dictators like Saddam will get overlooked or covered up, because he's greasing the palms under the table, but when America does something other folks don't like, it's cause to call us Nazis and war criminals (if you're radical) or bullies and cowboys (if you're moderate).

Ford wrote:In the first world war in particular the U.S. played almost no part.

US moral authority from the two world wars derives chiefly from the aftermath of the wars. Europe's mistreatment of a defeated Germany led directly to an even worse war two decades later. By stark contrast, the US occupations of Japan and Germany enabled transformation of these militant societies to peace-loving democracies and fostered a golden age of world stability. Rather than taking the spoils of war, we SPENT money on these nations, pouring in aid and know-how and good will, pouring in ideas and setting these peoples free. Instead of the short-sighted European approach, we took a longer view, investing into building a lasting peace and security.

Did we "impose" our way of thinking on them? Only up to the point of insisting that they NOT threaten us again. We had every right to insist on that.

We have every right today to insist on that. The Bush Doctrine is not a thin veil of excuses to cover naked aggression. It is an insistance on cutting through all the bu||sh/t to the heart of the matter: America will not tolerate threats to its security in the forms I spelled out at the start of this thread.

In the wake of September 11, we were going to ensure that no further attacks of that nature would occur against us. In the way that mutual protection pacts and the protestations of other nations would not stop the empire of Austria-Hungary when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, so protestations today will not stop the USA from securing itself against assassins and terrorists. We are so enraged and so deeply offended and threatened, those who oppose us on this matter will be considered to be allying themselves with our enemies, and woe to them for choosing so unwisely. Other nations should feel free to insist that we honor our core values in this pursuit. We welcome such accounting. However, we will not tolerate obstructionism, and we will not stop short of victory. The same driving will that led us to seek unconditional surrender from Imperial Japan drives us again today. We have suffered an intolerable attack, and the enemy who struck us will be pursued until its ability and its will to make war upon us is utterly destroyed.

If instead of covering for the Taliban, the UN had pressured them to provide the cooperation we needed, namely to end the state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and hand over Bin Laden, the Taliban would still be in power today. If they had provided the necessary cooperation, we would not have attacked.

If instead of covering for Saddam Hussein, the UN had pressured him to provide the cooperation we needed, a level of transparency in the matter of weapons of mass destruction sufficient to assure us of Saddam's good intentions and trustworthiness, and if Saddam had provided the necessary cooperation, he would still be in power today.

Both the Taliban and Saddam's regime chose to play brinkmanship games instead of acting in good faith on urgent matters that we flatly declared would lead to war if not satisfied.

At least for the American people, there are some things in this world worth fighting over. We have left Afghanistan as we left Japan. We will leave Iraq. Our intentions are what we claimed them to be.


America is drawing on the lessons of the terror attacks of September 11. I offered them to you to start this thread. Where is Europe? Stuck in the past, unable to look ahead, clinging to what they think they know, lost and afraid and confused. They understand that America is on the march but they don't understand why. They have sat in their protected enclave for fifty years and nurtured the faulty belief that all war is bad and wrong and evil. They are mistaken. Some wars are inevitable. It takes everybody to make peace. It takes only one side to make a war. When you are under attack by a ruthless and determined enemy, you either fight back or you will become the dominated. Freedom-loving people will choose war before they choose to surrender their way of life.

Some wars are inevitable. You can fight them early and minimize the damage, to nip the problems in the bud, or you can ignore the problems and let them explode into more catastrophic conflicts, and fight them later. When faced with a war that you cannot avoid, the lesser evil (the greater good) is to seize the initiative and challenge the threat before it is allowed to multiply.

America should have fought Al Qaeda sooner. That is the lesson ringing through our heads right now. That is the lesson that moved our armed forces into motion to deal with Afghanistan immediately. That is the lesson that led us to stop giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt and lay down an ultimatum. We gave him a year and a half after demonstrating our resolve in Afghanistan. We gave him six months after Bush spoke to the UN General Assembly and made our case to the world. We gave him three months after obtaining a UN Security Council Resolution insisting on specific forms of compliance. Even Dr. Blix's final report found Saddam's regime in material breach of 1441. When all else failed, we gave Saddam an ultimatum and 48 hours to comply. He passed on all of these chances to make peace, to keep the peace, to avoid war.

Setting all the bu||sh|t aside, we gave diplomacy every reasonable chance. Saddam's intent was clear: he had no desire to cooperate, no desire to present a meaningful level of assurances on our security needs.

The world wanted us to run through a nonsense shuffle and dance, to appease Saddam, to give him endless chances and never to hold him to account. This sends the worst kind of encouragement to Al Qaeda, where the world not only shows weakness, but shows sympathy to Al Qaeda's cause by fearing the United States on the march more than it fears the terrorists. Believe me, we KNOW the seriousness of choosing to move forward anyway, against the wishes of so many others around the world. That others can read only sinister motivations behind making such a severe choice is their failure of imagination and logic. Europe and Canada and many others can sit safely in their chairs and propose to wait, because they are not the ones under Al Qaeda's gun. They are not the ones whose cities will be targeted for attack. My home town of Washington, DC, is target number one. I will ask you kindly not to play Russian Roulette with my city, thank you very much. Get up off your @sses and help us, or get the H3ll out of the way.


- Sirian

moral authority arising out of victories in both world wars and the cold war...

Doing good deeds should not give you moral authority. Instead, simply continue to lead by example and hope others follow. Maybe I'm misconstruing your point here--I just don't think we should be out preaching morals to anyone based on war vicories, even if we did pour money into it.

I think the main reason we poured money into WWII aftermath is what happened to Germany the first time. We needed to save our own lives and money by setting them up in a stable fashion.

Ford Prefect wrote:
I appreciate your comments and enjoy reading them with one exception. The U.S. did not win

victories in both world wars and the cold war

In the first world war in particular the U.S. played almost no part. Joining after the majority of the slaughter was over so that they could be part of the dividing up of the old Prussian and Ottoman Empires.
Please study the facts of that war a bit. Canada with a population of approx. 5 million people put a half million men into the slaughterhouse of trench warfare losing 120,000 casualties almost 60,000 dead. Whole towns lost all their men to a senseless, stupid war of imperialism. But we count that time as when we became a nation.
In the second world war Canada stood with Britain and her allies against the threat of the invasion of Britain with much needed goods and equipment from the U.S. and repelled the Germans in the Battle of Britain long before the U.S. joined the war after the attack on Pearl Harbour. Canadian soldiers fought and died on Juno beach on June 6 the same as the brave soldiers of the U.S. on their own beaches.
Sorry if I seem touchy on this subject but my 91 year old father is a vetran of the second world war. He gave 4 years of his life to defend a country only connected to his by tradition. I hate to see his sacrifice and the sacrifice of so many Britains and Canadians belittled as irrelevant. We have earned just as much "moral authority" as the U.S. with the blood of our citizens.

I didnâ??t see anyone insult, or belittle Canadaâ??s war contributions or veterans. Where did that happen? What I did see was a Canadian minimizing as much as he could â?? the contributions of the United States and her veterans. Unbelievable.

Sirian wrote:I will ask you kindly not to play Russian Roulette with my city, thank you very much. Get up off your @sses and help us, or get the H3ll out of the way.

w3rd.

Wait now llclutchll. I was protesting the claim from Sirian that the U.S. had a "moral authority" based on "winning two world wars"
In my post I was careful to mention both the important equipment and supplies from the U.S. and the presence of the U.S. in the invasion of Europe.
Minimizing a contribution seems to me to come more from claiming to "win" a war all by yourself and so be able to take moral leadership.
That being said I certainly appologize if I gave you the erroneous impression that I don't appreciate the sacrifice of America in Europe.
I really think you should study what happened in the First World War before the U.S. joined in. It would give you an idea of what senseless slaughter is all about and how that war was really fought and "won" if winning was really possible.

Give me some time to digest your post Sirian. Heck give me some time to read all of it.

Actually llclutchll the more I think of your post the more I realize I reacted with typical Canadian politeness to an ingorant and offensive post.
Read what I wrote. I belittled nobody while Sirian failed to mention that the first and second world wars were won by a team of allies not the U.S. alone. Both you guys make it sound like nobody but America made any sacrifices, that nobody but Americans died fighting in Europe.
Talk about disgusting, that is how I find your post and the names on the Cenotaphs of towns all over Canada back me up.

Sirian wrote:So let's talk about Canada.

I have to question why you turned the thread in this direction. I'd think the ravings of a single Canadian loony (heh) shouldn't reflect on the whole of the Canadian population.

Sirian wrote:buildings. Lots and I do mean LOTS of smoke stacks spewing thick smoke along the highway. (Looked like Pittsburgh used to look fifteen or twenty years earlier.) The air smelled dirtier. Sorry, no offense intended. Maybe that was peculiar to the areas I visited. Wasn't a lot of ground.

That's Southern Ontario for you. Maybe you drove by Hamilton. Lived there for a year, UPWIND.

I'm guessing much of Ontario has been settled in a similar pattern to Michigan and Ohio, where communities grow out of industrial centers. Since you had a short visit, by definition you couldn't have seen much of the province, which has some awesome outdoors.

Sirian wrote:The most striking difference, however, was an almost religious mantra being repeated over and over: how Canada is the best place on earth. This was so predominant, it struck me like an American ad campaign, like a slogan, like a jingle, except not quite with the same phony, concocted feel to it. Nevertheless, it was pervasive. Some Canadians were laid back about it, but others seemed compelled to tell me, on learning that I was American, about how great Canada was. There seemed to be an expectation on the part of some that I would argue with them. I have no idea why. This thing was clearly important to them, though.

People back home would be on me for this, but I think there's some merit to the following idea: it's very Canadian to feel like the world's little brother. And that's the sort of thing that makes people defensive. I have to tell you, living as a Canadian in Canada for 24 years, I don't think I once had a conversation with a fellow citizen about how great the country is. We always viewed Americans as the brash patriotic ones. In contrast, we've had too many ★■◆●-fests to keep track of - taxes, government, the French, long winters, short winters, education, health care, and of course, America. Ragging on ourselves was endemic to the experience of growing up there.

The mindset has a lot in common with the British sense of self-deprecation and humility. Americans easily rally behind America, but the Brits have to rally behind their Queen, and Canadians have nothing to rally behind aside from an uneasily subtle set of differences between us and the world leader we share a border with.

So it's not hard to extrapolate this into projection, and then an eagerness to pick fights. Canadians (at least the ones I grew up with) can easily feel kicked around, and when there's an American around, we'll ask him how much he likes the country because secretly we know he wants to kick us too, and we'll kick first, which is really all we wanted in the first place. Did we mention to him how brutal hockey is?

BTW, this thread has much more right to be titled "DBB Logic" or "Sirian Logic". You're no dope, Siri, it was an inflammatory or sensationalist choice, whether you were conscious of it or not at the time.

Your right, you did make an ignorant post. And yeah, I did find it very offensive.

YOU minimized US involvement to make your point. YOU claim that WE don't appreciate CANADA's involvement in the war.

I never said that the US won the war by itself. I would never even imagine claiming that.

You have such a chip on your shoulder about people belittling CANADA. And yes, in my opinion you managed to do a great job of insulting our veterans.

Did you serve? Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have such a narrow view on how "winning" a war is defined. Yes, America, Australlia, Canada, and the rest of the Allies "WON" the war. Each country can claim victory because each country contributed.

I've heard the term "Ugly American" when I was overseas. They used it to define a self centered attitude that some Americans walk around with. You know the attitude, pissing on someone else's culture or accomplishments to make your culture or accomplishments look more impressive. I never thought I would meet an "Ugly Canadian".

You know Sirian Canada backed the U.S. in every effort to unseat Al Qaida. We co-operated in every initiative and committed as much of our admittedly woefully small military as we could in both support services and active duty during and after the expulusion of the Taliban from Afghanistan. We continue to work against the networks that send financial support to terrorist organizations and just today we have been told that our efforts to deport Al Qaida suspects and other action have earned us a spot as number 5 in Al Qaida's sights for targets of terroism. We are not afraid to remain there.
We disagree with the U.S. actions in Iraq. There is a feeling that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the real job of suppressing terrorist organizations around the world. Organizations that are just as prelevant in our allies countries as those of our enemys. I and many others believe that the war in Iraq is a tragic mistake, a miscalculation that will make the world a more dangerous place for America and her allies such as Canada that the war in Iraq will risk defeat in the war on terror.
For that reason we have left you to go it alone in this one action. I think you will find we will support you in many other actions and initiatives.
If you look at my list you note that the reasons I posted for Canadian's feeling threatened completely omitted reference to Iraq. You do a good job of describing America's reaction to the attack of September 11. Are we in Canada supposed to let our country have our foregn policy, our domestic policy our unique set of laws and customs be run over by the U.S. because it is in the best interest of America?
Canada and the U.S. are allies but we are not the same country. Sometimes we will disagree.
Just a thought for you. When so many people in so many countries disagree with the wisdom of an action is there not at least a possibility that they are right. America seems unable to accept any advice from anyone. The "my way or the highway" attitude is not always the best course.

Canada exists as an independent country on the sufferance of the U.S. and the rule of international law. Canada is effectively defensless militarily and certainly economicaly against the U.S. Should the situation arise where our water, our oil sands, our metals become nessesary for the survival of the U.S. your own post shows what Canada can expect. We will be forced to accept whatever terms your country dictates up to and including status akin to Puerto Rico.
And we will probably have to thank you for it too.

Anyway if people living in Guelph Ontario think they are living the best country on earth we must be doing something right. Imagine what those of us living in the nice places think.
If I had a nickel for every time I have heard an American say. "This is the greatest country in the world" I could buy a condo in Florida and retire.

Okay llclutchll this has gotten silly. We both, I am sure feel that those who join the military and serve their country, any country, make the highest of sacrifices.
Both of our countries lost thousands of good people during both world wars. We were allies then. Let's try to stay that way.

"You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists."

See, this is the twisted English, and twisted logic of a man who is a genius at manipulating and obfuscation.

Clearly, his assertion is just not true, and no thinking person can ignore the inherent dangers in thinking (and acting and speaking) which delineates positions in such a way.

It is entirely possible to NOT be with you, and NOT with the terrorists. I believe Switzerland is a neutral country, and have managed to maintain their distinct neutrality for a long period of time (NAZI money being as good as anyone else's notwithstanding!).

As a writer, you should be able to easily identify flase, misleading (and untruthful!) statement which attempt to polarise positions, when no polarisation exists.

For your information - perhaps Canada IS the best country on Earth - behind New Zealand of course! And there's absolutely nothing wrong with patriotism - something America would do well to remember as many of her population (including the current POTUS) slide from patriotism into Nationalism.

It's funny that non-Americans mention we "helped" in the invasions in Europe during WWII. You make it sound like we were part of some "supporting" role. We didn't just help, we turned the f'cking tide. Last I checked, Europe was LOSING the war against Hitler. It's not just enough that we were giving supplies to our allies, but we had to get dragged into the whole mess thanks to Japan. It was ignorant for us to think we were safe from such things anyways but thats besides the point.

Nobody ever talks about the fact that not only did we turn the tide in Europe, but we did it while fighting Japan all at the same time. I've never heard anyone talk about what might have happend had Japan beaten us. That Germany would have gotten a huge shot in the arm and the rest of the world would have been up shiat creek without a paddle.

http://www.sirian.org/

I think it would do all of us a lot of good to take a deep breath, count to ten and peruse Sirian's website. That fuschia font has an extraordinarily calming effect on me, anyway.

Clutch fer crissakes, Syrian is baiting the Canadians. Look at Ford Perfect's first post in this thread and ask yourself why you're buying into Syrian aka Cross me and I'll bury you in pile of purple prose's crap.