Sucking Up To U.S. Doesn't Help Canada

The honourable Foreign Minister was obviously brown-nosing.
As a rookie, he has yet to learn that this is the wrong way to approach Americans. Canada is not a US fiefdom or colony.

And the honourable authour of that tripe can learn to do some serious writing instead of trying to compose a piece of writing with the same intellectual value as the last edition of "Hustler." Five percent of it is composed of unsupported claims and falsehoods, and the rest of it just repeatedly stating that Canadians generally don't like President Bush. He's just like Woodward... minus a Bernstein and a story.
So, as for McKay being nice to Rice, I say he didn't go far enough. Two elections have been run on potshots at President Bush, an effigy has been destroyed, and apolitical American citizens chewed out for having children who got upset at the slaughter of the cute animals they loved so much at the zoo.
I guess simple old me, I just can't understand how doing those things helped Canadian interests. In my own backwards way I guess I believe that being courteous and friendly to people is a really good way to get them the actually listen to you, whether you're agreeing or dissenting.

Commonsense101, you have obviously been skipping your meds again.

While Americans per se may be decent people (which many of them are, based on my own experience), their government is riddled with corruption and villainy all the way to the highests levels.

Fabricated WMD intel in Iraq, at the very least collusion in the events of 911, deliberate disregard for treaties they have signed, not to mention Bush' crimes in spying on his own people illegally, and you say that McKay didn't go far enough in his brownosing of Secretary Rice?

Please, you're either pulling our collective leg with your sense of humour, or you are mad as a band of hatters.



---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

You're right
they'll definitely listen to what we have to say if we keep on acting like jackasses. In fact that's the first rule of mediation! Become hostile to those involved and they'll find it easier to accept your ideas and suggestions...

In regards to Canadian Trade Negotiators one Washington trade lawyer in 2005 noted, "The United States regards Canadians as wimps and expects them to fold."

Trade between Canada and the United States has developed to the point that Canadians are hard pressed to find anything in Canada that is 100% made in Canada that Canadians can buy. Everything is either made from materials made in the US, assembled in the US, manufactured, processed in the US or can't be made without tools made in the US. Canada has become wholly dependent on its southern neighbor the United States of America. No other incidents have proven this then the soft wood lumber and the Mad Cow situations, but yet 95% of our trade is said to have no problems.

Yet, millions of American jobs depend on their exports to Canada, as every year goes by Americans become increasingly dependent on imports of Canadian resources, that for 46 years in a row Canada has been the leading export market in the world for U.S. goods and services, that American exports to Canada every year are greater than America’s exports to all fifteen European Union countries combined, greater than U.S. exports to Japan, the United Kingdom and Germany put together and more than to all of Latin America and the Caribbean countries combined.

TORONTO, March 21 /CNW/ - Canada leads the G7 countries as the most cost-effective location for business, according to a 2006 study that compares business costs in nine industrial countries in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. Canada ranked second out of the nine countries examined, with business costs approximately 5.5 percent below those in the United States.

KPMG's 2006 Competitive Alternatives study measured 27 cost components - including Labour, taxes, real estate, and utilities - as applied to business operations in nine countries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. The research included an analysis of these costs in 128 cities worldwide. The study's basis for comparison was the after-tax cost of startup and operation for 17 types of business, over a 10-year planning horizon.

"The advantage seen for many of the Canadian cities relative to the U.S. is generally the result of combination of lower labour costs, including lower employer costs for private medical coverage, lower real estate costs, and lower electricity costs in Canada than in the United States, where deregulation has seen electric costs soar in many regions." KPMG's Mark MacDonald stated. "Various federal and provincial tax cuts over the last decade have also made Canada's tax system more competitive with the U.S., and have contributed to the positive position of the Canadian cities," MacDonald
concluded.

American's and American Businesses do business with Canada because it is profitable to do so not because they like Canadians, Canada or that Canada bows down to everything their Government wants, but they do notice when we do!

Canada and Canadian Businesses are competitive they just have bigger eyes then stomachs. Besides NAFTA doesn’t give Canadian Businesses equal opportunity in the U.S. as it affords American Businesses in Canada.

We could be just like China whom the US Government says they dislike and American Businesses would still trade with us as they do now with China. One problem though, Canada wouldn't get the same respect because quit frankly Canadian Politicians are wimps and do plan to fold to appease our friend and family to the south the good old USA.


---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

A good way to courteousely argue for a better world would be to sign the petitions found at <a href="http://www.unitedforpeace.org">http://www.unitedforpeace.org</a>.

Cpmmonsense 101,

If Peter MacKay had talked to me like that I would have called security. He's creepy. Even as creepy as Condi is she looked creeped out by him. He's taking his job title of "foreign affairs" too literally.

When someone has to grovel for approval that's just as disrespectful to the person you are grovelling to as it is to yourself and when you're representing a country you're a disgrace to that country. He and Harper are a digrace not just to themselves but Canada as well.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

"What is it about Conservative politicians and their love affair with all things American that leads them to depart in such a big way from the ideal of bilateral relations between two equal sovereign states? When dealing with the U.S. government, MacKay and the rest of the Conservatives go far beyond the required diplomatic niceties and come across like someone applying to be the White House pool boy."

It's not just Cons that act like that. When Colin Powell visited Canada Bill Graham as foreign affairs minister was like a lovesick teenager around him. He practically floated. It was humiliating! This kind of adulation towards criminals does make it hard for me not to retch.


---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

Oh yes. Cheap potshots and self-righteous posturing are a much better way to deal with a neighbouring country. Canadian politcians have, over the years, had cordial interactions with presidents, prime ministers, dictators, warlords, ambassadors, UN delegates, (real) war criminals, terrorists, protestors and activists. That's what politicians do.

And why didn't any of you people have a problem with Chretien being so buddy-buddy with Bill Clinton?

I agree though that watching somebody sucking up can be nauseating. I get sick to my stomach every time Michael Moore fawns on Canada. Actually, I just plain get sick everything I see or hear that lying, self-aggrandizing piece of crap.

Whereas I get sick of your logical fallicies and troll drivel. Does the <i>bush league</i> write your material or do you just upchuck it?<p>---<br><br />
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."<br />
(Albert Einstein)

I think that if Canada ever came close to the election of a Canadian, independent, progressive government, the US would invade and occupy the country, most likely with the help of generals looking for medals and big bangs. <br />
<br />
What amuses me when some collectivizer, deep integrationist is calling him or herself "Individualist". Reminds me of the nazis and communists preaching "fredom".<br />
<br />
The precedents of the US overthrowing governments are all there, written by Americans. Not to mention the 4 dozen or so countries bombed without the courtesy of declaring war on them, then shedding crocodile tears over the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, calling it the "Day of Infamy":<br />
<br />
From: robert weissman <rob@essential.org><br />
To: corp-focus@lists.essential.org<br />
Subject: Overthrow<br />
<br />
OVERTHROW<br />
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman<br />
<br />
Hawaii<br />
Cuba<br />
Philippines<br />
Puerto Rico<br />
Nicaragua<br />
Honduras<br />
Iran<br />
Guatemala<br />
South Vietnam<br />
Chile<br />
Grenada<br />
Panama<br />
Afghanistan<br />
Iraq<br />
<br />
What do these 14 governments have in common?<br />
<br />
You got it.<br />
<br />
The United States overthrew them.<br />
<br />
And in almost in every case, the overthrow can be traced to corporate<br />
interests.<br />
<br />
In Hawaii, the sugar companies didn't want to pay export duties -- so<br />
they overthrew the queen of Hawaii and made it part of the United States.<br />
<br />
In Guatemala, United Fruit wanted Arbenz out.<br />
<br />
Out he went.<br />
<br />
In Chile, Allende offended the copper interests.<br />
<br />
Allende -- dead.<br />
<br />
In Iran, Mossadegh offended major oil interests.<br />
<br />
Mossadegh out.<br />
<br />
In Nicaragua, Jose Santos Zelaya was bothering American lumber and<br />
mining companies.<br />
<br />
Zelaya -- out.<br />
<br />
In Honduras, an American banana magnate organized the coup of the<br />
Honduran government.<br />
<br />
And on down the list.<br />
<br />
Democratic Party critics charge that the Bush administration is ripping<br />
the United States from a long history of diplomacy by violently<br />
overthrowing governments.<br />
<br />
Not true, says former New York Times foreign correspondent Stephen Kinzer.<br />
<br />
Kinzer says that in fact the opposite is true.<br />
<br />
"Actually, the United States has been overthrowing governments for more<br />
than a century," Kinzer said in an interview.<br />
<br />
He documents this in a new book: Overthrow: America's Century of Regime<br />
Change from Hawaii to Iraq (Times Books, 2006).<br />
<br />
Overthrow is the third in a series of regime change books by Kinzer.<br />
<br />
His previous two: All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of<br />
Middle East Terror (2003), and Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the<br />
American Coup in Guatemala (1982).<br />
<br />
Together, they would make a remarkable "regime change" boxed set for the<br />
holidays.<br />
<br />
Kinzer left the Times last year. He says that the parting was "perfectly<br />
amicable" -- although he doesn't sound convincing when he says this.<br />
<br />
What is clear is that Kinzer is not comfortable with establishment<br />
rationales for the American imperial project.<br />
<br />
This became clear during an interview Kinzer gave on NPR's Fresh Air<br />
with Terry Gross earlier this month.<br />
<br />
Gross tried to get Kinzer to concede that if we hadn't overthrown these<br />
governments, the Soviets would have taken over, or today, radical Islam<br />
will take over.<br />
<br />
Kinzer didn't give an inch.<br />
<br />
For example, Gross said that had we not overthrown these 14 governments,<br />
"the Soviets might have won the Cold War."<br />
<br />
"I don't think that's true at all," Kinzer responded. "In the first<br />
place, the countries whose governments we overthrew, all countries that<br />
we claimed were pawns of the Kremlin, actually were nothing of the sort.<br />
We now know, for example, that the Kremlin had not the slightest<br />
interest in Guatemala at all in the early 1950s. They didn't even know<br />
Guatemala existed. They didn't even have diplomatic or economic relations."<br />
<br />
"The leader of Iran who we overthrew was fiercely anti-communist. He<br />
came from an aristocratic family. He despised Marxist ideology."<br />
<br />
"In Chile, we always portrayed President Allende as a cat's paw of the<br />
Kremlin. We now know from documents that have come out that the Soviets<br />
and the Chinese were constantly fighting with him and urging him to calm<br />
down and not be so provocative towards the Americans. So, in the first<br />
place, the Soviets were not behind those regimes. We completely<br />
overestimated the influence of the Soviet Union on those regimes."<br />
<br />
When Gross asked Kinzer what he thought of the "spread of radical<br />
Islam," Kinzer didn't hesitate.<br />
<br />
"We sometimes like to think that our interventions in these countries<br />
don't have effects, but when we break down the doors of foreign<br />
countries and impose our own leaders, as we did in Iran and as we've<br />
recently done in Iraq, we outrage a lot of people," Kinzer said. "We<br />
like to think that everybody will soon calmly come to realize that by<br />
rational standards, this was a good thing to do. But that doesn't<br />
happen. We are not able to change cultures as easily as we are able to<br />
change regimes."<br />
<br />
The United States had a hand in many other overthrows, but Kinzer<br />
limited his cases to those where the United States was the primary mover<br />
and shaker.<br />
<br />
So, for example, while the United States played a role in the overthrow<br />
of Lumumba in the Congo, Kinzer says that it was primarily an operation<br />
by Belgium on behalf of large Belgian mining interests.<br />
<br />
This might be the most important book to read as the United States<br />
approaches a showdown with Iran.<br />
<br />
President Bush says he's trying to bring democracy to Iran.<br />
<br />
In fact, Iranians had democracy once.<br />
<br />
And we crushed it.<br />
<br />
Kinzer is on tour promoting his book.<br />
<br />
And he's got a gig at Northwestern University in Chicago, where he lives.<br />
<br />
He's teaching a course in regime change.<br />
<br />
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime<br />
Reporter, <<a href="http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com>">http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com></a>;. Robert Weissman is<br />
editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor,<br />
<<a href="http://www.multinationalmonitor.org>">http://www.multinationalmonitor.org></a>;. Mokhiber and Weissman are<br />
co-authors of On the Rampage: Corporate Predators and the Destruction of<br />
Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press).<br />
<br />
(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman<br />
<br />
This article is posted at:<br />
<<a href="http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2006/000237.html>">http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2006/000237.html></a>;<br />
<br />
_

<p>jensonj,</p> <blockquote>Where Canadian interests diverge significantly from American policy (which they so often do), I want my government to represent our interests vigorously and clearly — even if that means offending the Americans.</blockquote> <p>I can certainly empathise with that position. If <i>Canadian</i> and <i>American</i> were interchanged in that sentence, I’d tend to agree with it — although in either case, I hope that one country’s interests would be vigourously and clearly represented without having to offend people of the other country.</p> <blockquote>Trade between Canada and the United States has developed to the point that Canadians are hard pressed to find anything in Canada that is 100% made in Canada that Canadians can buy. Everything is either made from materials made in the US, assembled in the US, manufactured, processed in the US or can’t be made without tools made in the US. Canada has become wholly dependent on its southern neighbour the United States of America.</blockquote> <p>If one substitutes <i>the USA</i> and <i>Americans</i> for <i>Canada</i> and <i>Canadians</i>, and <i>China</i> for <i>the US</i> and its variants, then one would have a lament that’s often heard on this side of the border.</p> <blockquote> that for 46 years in a row Canada has been the leading export market in the world for U.S. goods and services, </blockquote> <p>A quick Google search revealed <a href="http://www.buyusa.gov/canada/en/traderelationsusacanada.html">this US government site</a>, which states that the USA has been the largest buyer of Canadian exports since 1942, and Canada has been the largest buyer of American exports since 1946. I wonder what comparing the volumes of trade before and after the implementation of the various free trade agreements would reveal? Has free trade emphasised Canada exporting resources rather than finished products? Has it increased the import of American crops?</p> <blockquote>Americans and American businesses do business with Canada because it is profitable to do so, not because they like Canadians, Canada or that Canada bows down to everything their Government wants, but they do notice when we do!</blockquote> <p>I don’t doubt that profit is the primary motivation, but intangibles like cultural similarities shouldn’t be discounted as completely irrelevant to business decisions — sometimes “gut feelings” will make or break contract negotiations, and honey usually goes down more easily than vinegar. (I agree that saccharine is no substitute for honey.)</p> <blockquote>We could be just like China whom the US Government says they dislike and American businesses would still trade with us as they do now with China.</blockquote> <p>That option might not be as palatable to American businesses until there are 1,300 million Canadians …</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

"What amuses me when some collectivizer, deep integrationist is calling him or herself "Individualist". Reminds me of the nazis and communists preaching "fredom"."

Interesting. What amuses me, on the other hand, is a believer in big government and opponent of competitive free enterprise referring to people who assert and defend private property rights or believe in economic competition as "collectivizers".

Anything short of outright hostility to the Americans is considered "sucking up" by you nationalists.

You guys aren't going to vote conservative - ever. So there's no point in Harper's government trying to please you.

You know what, you lost this time around. I know guys on the left feel entitled to have your way all the time, but just suck it up. A government was elected that does not share your hostility towards the US. Maybe you'll get your way next time. Who knows? But I for one am pleased that, for now anyway, we have a government in power that isn't going to play cheap nationalist games in order to pander to the insecurities of certain Canadians.