Needless to say hallowed words like Deep Integration, the Security and Prosperity Partnership and North American Union never cross his lips as this is what the eerie silence is all about.
Unfortunately, our esteemed leader’s timing is off as he displays his usual poor political judgment on a very profound issue. This is the worst possible time to be sucking up to the Yanks and here are ten good reasons why:
1. The American economy is in deep trouble. The US dollar is falling and is likely to be replaced by the Euro as the international standard. Economists are describing the US economy as a donut- a big hole at its center.
2. The US has huge trade deficits with its trading partners.
3. The wars the US has been fighting are being financed by running up its national debt and its creditors, namely China, are getting nervous and starting to invest their money elsewhere.
4. The US is now spending 2.2 billion dollars a day in Iraq alone. No economy can afford this cash outflow over an extended period. Wars are inflationary and this is one reason the Vietnam War came to an end when it did. The US takes full credit for the implosion of the USSR by drawing it into excessive military spending. Now the US is falling into exactly the same trap- and Osama bin Laden is the one who set it.
5. The world economy is going through dynamic changes as countries like China, India, and many South American countries are coming to the fore. A group of South Asian countries are forming a trading block from which the US is specifically excluded and they are planning on their own currency. If Canada continues on its present course it is going to be an isolated economic backwater dependant on the benevolence of its Southern neighbour and segregated from a dynamic world economy.
6. In Iraq a coalition nationalist movement is emerging that is insisting the US leave Iraq and that Iraq is for the Iraqis. They are no longer going see their country occupied and ruthlessly exploited. This should be supported.
7. In Afghanistan there is a growing momentum for a negotiated peace. Canada should be supportive of this and quit moving in lockstep with Washington’s every whim.
8. The USA has ruthlessly exploited 9/11 to its own advantage to advance its global domination and coerce its allies, especially Canada and Mexico, into an even more subservient relationship. In the Security and Prosperity Partnership Canada and Mexico are the equivalent of minority shareholders and will be treated as such.
9. The American concern for its national security is largely fraudulent as 9/11 was clearly a failure of its own internal security and other countries should not be scapegoats for this failure. Its tyrannical foreign policy before the attack was a fundamental cause of the attack and its policies since the attack-especially the war on terror- have only made a bad situation worse.
10. Contrary to what the despicable Thomas d’Aquino and his merry band of turncoats at the Canadian Council of Chief Executives might believe the American empire is in descendance not ascendance. The New American Century is in foreclosure. Getting too close now is like buying a deck chair on the Titanic.
It is surely time for an election but not on the any of the issues contained in the Speech from the Throne. Canadian sovereignty and North American Union should be the issue. This would require an act of resolute political courage on the part of the opposition parties acting in an informal coalition. They must aggressively make this the central issue and put the quisling Harperites in their place- a feeble rump party warming Opposition back benches.
Comments
view comments in forum
You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.
<a href="http://research.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=653">http://research.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=653</a><p>---<br>"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va
---
"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va
/sarcasm
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
The fact is that most of the country was at relative peace until after the occupation forces attacked in 2001. Yet questions are asked only up to 2002, and we're left wondering what the Afghans thought about their lives *before* the country was attacked. Assuming life is better since 2002, we have no idea if life is better since before 2001.
Another question is asked concerning opinions about the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (which appears to be a fictional group), but there are no questions asking for the opinion of the general Afghan resistance forces that are fighting the occupation.
The poll uses the word "mission" yet not even us Canadians know what the mission is about. What are the stated goals of the "mission", does anyone really know? It all started off so simple - to get Bin Laden, but that mission is *not* what happened, and that's not justification for remaining in the country indefinitely.
The poll is a joke for another reason: The whole country is under occupational siege, and under that kind of scenario the results of any poll are highly questionable no matter the outcome.
For example,
"The minority critical of the mission emphasize the killing of innocent people and searching houses without permission."
Imagine being asked questions by the same people who kick down doors of innocent people and search houses without permission - how are you going to answer those questions, are you going to be downright honest, or are you going to serve up what you think these people want to hear?
<br />
I think thats covered under the 16% of people polled think that foreign troops in Afghanistan is a bad idea.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/268736">http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/268736</a><p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />
The question was not about US troops and their terrorist tactics or the tactics of any troops, but about "the multitude of foreign countries that have been present in their country over the past five years" - whatever that may mean. I'm sure many Afghans would like to see the fighting and occupation end, but if it results in yet another mess I can understand why they'd say that they'd prefer there be a "multitude of foreign countries present" to oversee a peaceful and stable transition.
The poll was conducted in every Afghan province, so it applies to the foreign troops in (if there are any) that province. German, Dutch, Canadian etc.
"I'm sure many Afghans would like to see the fighting and occupation end, but if it results in yet another mess I can understand why they'd say that they'd prefer there be a "multitude of foreign countries present" to oversee a peaceful and stable transition."
I agree. I'm sure they do, (and so do we) but from interviews on CBC and other places, Afghans have one thing in common - they didn't like the Taliban. Perhaps the interviews are cherry picked, but one thing is clear; they enjoy the right to openly criticize their government now, and to foreign journalists!. Something that would have got them shot under the Taliban.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
That is probably correct, but I'm sure they don't like the never ending occupation either, especially the Americans who are their to make sure that their dwindling Empire stays afloat. The questions were cherry picked to avoid the real contentious issues surrounding the occupation, and that much should be obvious even to you.
For example, I'm sure that if you asked Iraqi's if they hated Saddam, they'd mostly agree, but it is painfully obvious that they despise the occupation of their country at least as much as they despised Saddam, and it's most likely that they despise the occupation a whole lot more than they did Saddam because their lives are far worse off under the occupation. The Afghan people by contrast are fortunate that the Americans are mostly bogged down in Iraq more so than Afghanistan otherwise they'd be suffering the same fate.
You can structure any poll to give you the answers you want, it's not very hard to do especially when you control the "free and open" press and when you have all the guns on your side. Same thing goes with so-called free and open elections. If you don't want your poll to show that the people hate the occupation, don't ask the question, and if you want your poll to "suggest" that the people prefer the occupation, simply chose the questions carefully and make sure the responses are presented in the context that gives the impression of a favorable response.
the questions we would have three more ways of analysing the war on
Afghanistan. Polls are a waste of money unless you have a vested interest in
getting some slanted information out there.
---
"The most sustainable product is the one you never bought in the first place."
Alex Steffan
<a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/documents/MergerInTheMaking.pdf">http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/documents/MergerInTheMaking.pdf</a><br />
<br />
It's about 4 MB. Enjoy!
---
Robert Billyard