Bush Speaks to Canada

[Occhidiangela]

1. You claim murder on an accusation, not when you have facts. That does not square with your allegedly moral stance on this topic. When the investigation is done, your assertion will either be correct or incorrect. I am happy to await the outcome, not happy that an investigation is needed. As to Hirsch, facts? Hmmm, what he reports is what some of us call "RUMINT."

2. Germany chose not to get in the war. That is Germany's absolute right, as a sovereign state, and believe it or not, I completely respect that right. So too Russia's, and many others. You must do as a nation what you believe is in your long term strategic interest. However, if you ain't in it, what makes you think you have any grounds to comment on the conduct, other than as a sideline kibitzer, a non accountable critic, a "sharpshooter?" You don't. I've been in it, and I promise you, I have no patience for sharpshooters who know damn near nothing beyond the misinformatin and rumor, and occasional nugget of fact, spread in the international media. It is not the critic who counts: anyone can spout hot air from the sidelines. The BBC, allegedly British, certainly has a dog in the fight.

3. Is the war in Iraq folly, is it a bad decision? Thecla, that is an excellent question and line of thought. I have been on record on this forum for two years unsatisfied that you can spread democracy at the point of a bayonet, and still not satisfied with "why now?" for other than internal political reasons: to avoid the problems of our own Appeasement party making things worse in the 5-10 time horizon (2006-2001.) There are too many subtle Mid East policy factors I simply do not understand, or most likely don't know.

You put your finger on a very sore point with me, in re our policy decisions, as the real enemy of the US in the Persian Gulf -- Iran -- since 1979, can only benefit from the removal of Saddam and political instability in Iraq. They are the big dog in the Persian Gulf. What long term thinking is going on here? I am at a loss.

Illegal?

When you can answer up to why Germany sat on its hands for 10 years of condoning Iraqi UN sanction busting through silence and "turning one's head away" (Canada supported the embargo with its men and treasure, staunch ally) feel free to talk to me aobut "illegal" and "immoral." Enabling and appeasing despots is not moral behaviour, it is moral cowardice. We Americans have manure on our hands aplenty on that score in Latin America over the past 100 years. So do Germans in the Mideast, not to mention the Croation connection in Bosnia/Yugoslavia. You want to play the moral game, all well and good, but you are on thin ice where you are sitting.

Come to me with clean hands, sir, and I'll be all ears to "moral" arguments. Until then, your "moral" posturing is just that, posturing, and more to the point, regurgitation of propaganda and rumor. That the course of action, at the political and tactical level, since May 2003 has been awkward at best I must agree with you. From official rhetoric to any number of missed oportunities for broader participation in Nation building, the list of "why on earth was that decision made?" keeps on growing, at least in my mind. I cannot say more due to NDA from recent experience, so to speak.

4. On a much happier note, the ISAF (NATO sponsored International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan is making progress, and a danke to our friends in Germany who are pitching in to make that work must be passed along, particularly if I am going to take shots on the other score. Fair is fair.

Occhi

[Thecla]

You claim murder on an accusation, not when you have facts. That does not square with your allegedly moral stance on this topic. When the investigation is done, your assertion will either be correct or incorrect. I am happy to await the outcome.

These are not unsubstantiated accusations: there are plenty of facts available. If you want to wait to form your own conclusions from them, or wait until someone is actually convicted, be my guest. I suppose with your unmatched moral consistency, you're awaiting the outcome of Saddam Hussein's trial as well; and, no doubt, you would be equally sanguine about the Abu Ghraib "harassment" had it been naked American troops who were being arranged in piles.

Germany chose not to get in the war. That is Germany's absolute right, as a sovereign state, and believe it or not, I completely respect that right. So too Russia's, and many others. You must do as a nation what you believe is in your long term strategic interest. However, if you ain't in it, what makes you think you have any grounds to comment on the conduct, other than as a sideline kibitzer, a non accountable critic, a "sharpshooter?" You don't.

You seem to forget that I live in the US, not Germany. But that's beside the point. The Iraq war affects everyone in the world, and Germans or Canadians have every ground to comment on US policies and conduct in Iraq.

Come to me with clean hands, sir, and I'll be all ears to "moral" arguments. Until then, your "moral" posturing is just that, posturing, and more to the point, regurgitation of propaganda and rumor.

Again, you dismiss anyone you disagree with as having moral double standards, political bias, dirty hands, or whatever. It detracts from what you have to say. If your hands are so clean, your opinions so untainted by political bias, your morals so pure, we should market an Occhi brand laundry soap. You can stand on the box.

On a much happier note, the ISAF (NATO sponsored International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan is making progress

Afghanistan has in my opinion been much harder than it should of been, in large part because of the diversion of US resources to Iraq. But Afghanistan made sense. Iraq never did.

[Sirian]

Afghanistan made sense. Iraq never did.

A sincere statement, I am sure. Allow me to offer a perspective from the other side of the aisle.

What does "make sense" mean to you? I'll tell you what it means to me.

1) It makes sense to kick Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in 1991.

2) It makes sense to stop short of Baghdad in 1991 solely because the Arab members of the coalition did not want us to remove Saddam. (We thought Saddam would be so weakened, that the Shia inside his country could remove him for us. Woops, that turned out to be wrong, but at the time, it made sense.)

3) It makes sense, when granting mercy to Saddam in the form of not removing him, that as part of the cease fire agreement we signed with him, that we used our leverage to get him to commit to give up all weapons of mass destruction, long range missiles, related programs, etc. That is, strip away everything he might use for offense, while leaving his nation enough defense to fend off any neighbors who might try to take advantage.

4) It makes sense, when Saddam began immediately to cheat on the cease fire, to apply diplomacy to try to force compliance. Even when these measures rose to the level of oppressive economic sanctions through the UN, it made sense anyway. (Woops, we didn't count on Saddam being able to bribe and corrupt the UN itself, and siphon billions from a program aimed at ensuring that Iraqis not starve or go without medicines as a result of the sanctions. The sanctions themselves turned out to be a mistake. We should have skipped that step and cited the Cease Fire violations and resumed our march to Baghdad MUCH SOONER, but that's 20/20 hindsight for you.)

5) It makes sense to rely on the UN Security Council to pass resolutions demanding behavior changes from Saddam's regime.

6) It makes sense for President Clinton to decide to bomb Saddam's WMD sites in 1998, after the UN Weapons Inspectors gave up on being able to do their jobs due to Iraqi obstructionism.

7) It makes sense to start worrying about loose cannon in the wake of September 11. Who among Americans has NOT thought of the horror that would result if Al Qaeda were able to launch a terror strike using NBC weaponry? Chemical would be the least of our worries, but could still kill thousands. Bio is truly horrific, depending on the pathogen. Radiological bombs could, at worst, kill tens of thousands and render some sections of prime real estate unusable for years. Then there is the unspeakable possibility of nuclear weapons. That last is quite remote -- they are extremely hard to obtain, harder to transport, and extremely hard to smuggle undetected (the radiation is a huge obstacle) but the stakes are so high that NO degree of possibility can be tolerated with sanguine indifference. It makes sense to start looking at the loose cannons and see what can be done to secure them.

8) It makes sense to look with suspicion at the number one loose cannon on the planet, Saddam Hussein. He's already been a threat, a danger, a massive headache. He's the only world leader to have used WMD in the last two decades, both in warfare and for internal genocidal use. It makes no sense to trust this man. Instead, it makes sense to insist upon security assurances, PROOF that he has mended his ways, that he is complying with his cease fire obligations, that he is ready to turn a new leaf and cooperate as responsible member of the world community of nations.

9) It makes sense to lay the burden of proof of compliance upon Saddam. When dealing with matters of national security with tens of thousands of lives or more potentially at stake, with the stability of an entire region at stake involving hundreds of millions of lives, it makes sense that this tyrant and despot, this untrustworthy individual, be held to account one way or another: that he cooperate to provide the required assurances, or that his lack of cooperation itself (in light of his past behavior) be viewed as an intolerable threat (a nation possessing WMD being led by a madman with a personal vendetta against the USA); and it makes sense that that threat be removed.

10) It makes sense to go the last mile on diplomacy, to go through one more round of UN resolutions, weapons inspections, and attempts to obtain the required assurances through peaceful means. But, when Dr. Blix's final report came back with the conclusion that Saddam's regime was in material breach, it stopped making sense to keep giving him more and more chances. Twelve years was quite enough, thank you very much.

11) It makes sense to give Saddam a final ultimatum, rather than to launch a "surprise" attack.

12) It makes sense to invade as a last resort, with so much at stake. When there are no other viable options left -- treaties failed, sanctions failed (and were in fact corrupted), international pressure failed, UN resolutions failed, weapons inspections failed, limited "from the air only" military strikes had failed, and a final ultimatum had also failed -- it makes sense to reserve the right to use military force as a last resort.

Afghanistan made sense. Iraq never did.

Afghanistan was bloody obvious. Having been hit from there once, it was easy to understand how we'd be hit again if we did nothing.

Iraq is just as obvious. You may not see the sense of it, but many do.

There are those, like the good Senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kerry, who assert that terrorism is chiefly a law enforcement problem, who believe Iraq was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. The way that law enforcement works is that when a crime is committed, the perpetrators are pursued and apprehended.

Did you know that the police cannot protect you from criminals? Did you know that they must wait for a crime to be committed before they can act at all? In the case of terroristic threats, that's a crime. If you are threatened in such a way, they do not have to wait for an actual murder. The threat can be enough to intervene. However, if no actual crime has yet been committed, and you call the police, they are going to tell you they can't help you, even if there is a bona fide danger persuing you.

I have been in that position, and it's an alarming eye-opener. When criminals take advantage of you, you might like to think that the police can protect you. However, they only have so much manpower, and there are a lot of criminals out there. Even if you get an officer assigned to the case and he or she works very hard, they can't sit outside your house AND go searching through the woods AND interview locals looking for witnesses AND follow the leads they are getting. In short, they can't stop crime. All they can do is TRY to nab criminals after the fact, before they commit more crimes. Even then, they have to meet extraordinary standards in terms of the evidence, respecting the rights of suspects, observing constitutional limits, and so forth. If someone is out to kill you and they have a track record of eluding the police, you might want to consider taking some degree of measure into your own hands. Buy a gun, get trained on how to use it, and resolve yourself to be willing to pull the trigger if your life may be at stake.

There are those of us who believe that taking a law enforcement approach to terrorists is no longer acceptable. 3000 lives, a trillion dollars worth of damage to our economy, and a partially successful decapitation strike at our economic, military and governmental nerve centers is simply too much success for the terrorists. We must reassess and revise our thinking. The stakes are too high to play defense. We need to stop the next attack before it happens, if we can. THAT is where Iraq entered the picture.

Iraq's connection to 9-11 isn't that of having committed the crime. It was one of being too likely to contribute to the next such attack. Even so, we gave every available diplomatic avenue one last chance. When Saddam's bad faith became clear -- lacking good faith, no option could suffice -- that was the end.

Afghanistan made sense. Iraq never did.

So says the law enforcement perspective.

Meanwhile, those of us who would see the next 9-11 style attack AVERTED have demanded that our government fulfill its oaths to provide for the common defense. Saddam's Iraq had numerous chances to choose to supply security assurances (regarding WMD programs and the fate of page after page of unsatisfied issues and questions in Hans Blix's UN Weapons Inspections report).

Failing that, should we trust Saddam's good will? Even lacking large weapons stockpiles, he might still have had some vials of biological agent tucked away in one of his cubby holes. Only takes a matchbook full of botchulinum toxin to kill millions. Saddam wouldn't even have to supply weapons. He might supply technology, equipment, know-how. The only way to trust him would have been if he turned a new leaf (like Qadafi) and came clean, embraced transparency and reform. Short of that, he posed a threat.

We should have given Saddam more chances? More inspections? More sanctions? More time? To what end? So he could violate a nineteenth and a twentieth UN resolution? So his bribes at the UN could get the sanctions lifted and give him room to reconstitute his weapons programs?

Afghanistan made sense. Iraq never did.

Containment of Saddam's Iraq made sense on September 10. I continue to hold out hope that reasoned debate will bring more people forward into present time. If we begin to speak with one voice, the odds of being able to meet our needs through diplomacy will rise. How's that for making sense.


- Sirian

[WarBlade]

7) It makes sense to start worrying about loose cannon in the wake of September 11. Who among Americans has NOT thought of the horror that would result if Al Qaeda were able to launch a terror strike using NBC weaponry? Chemical would be the least of our worries, but could still kill thousands. Bio is truly horrific, depending on the pathogen. Radiological bombs could, at worst, kill tens of thousands and render some sections of prime real estate unusable for years. Then there is the unspeakable possibility of nuclear weapons. That last is quite remote -- they are extremely hard to obtain, harder to transport, and extremely hard to smuggle undetected (the radiation is a huge obstacle) but the stakes are so high that NO degree of possibility can be tolerated with sanguine indifference. It makes sense to start looking at the loose cannons and see what can be done to secure them.

Funnily enough the above line of thinking is one I only ever see ventured by Americans when searching for reasons why Saddam Hussein was a threat.

Amazing really. Propaganda is such a useful tool isn't it?

8) It makes sense to look with suspicion at the number one loose cannon on the planet, Saddam Hussein.

Another one from the White House perspective! You're on a roll Sirian. Bush speaks, America listens, America believes and Public enemy #1 is born. Yay for mass media eh?

Gotta love how almost everyone else looks incredulously at this position and clearly points out that there are bigger problems still out there, but apparently most of the world is wrong and Bush is right, eh?

9) It makes sense to lay the burden of proof of compliance upon Saddam. When dealing with matters of national security with tens of thousands of lives or more potentially at stake, with the stability of an entire region at stake involving hundreds of millions of lives, it makes sense that this tyrant and despot, this untrustworthy individual, be held to account one way or another: that he cooperate to provide the required assurances, or that his lack of cooperation itself (in light of his past behavior) be viewed as an intolerable threat (a nation possessing WMD being led by a madman with a personal vendetta against the USA); and it makes sense that that threat be removed.

There's also a "madman with a vendetta against Saddam Hussein" to worry about too. One who has proven uncooperative, untrustworthy and controls WMD. Let's not be too dismissive of that little worrying fact.

10) It makes sense to go the last mile on diplomacy, to go through one more round of UN resolutions, weapons inspections, and attempts to obtain the required assurances through peaceful means. But, when Dr. Blix's final report came back with the conclusion that Saddam's regime was in material breach, it stopped making sense to keep giving him more and more chances. Twelve years was quite enough, thank you very much.

Material breach: Al Samoud 2 missiles which were hastily dismantled as I recall. The WMD question was never fully resolved thanks to Bush & Co. Well, at least not until Blix's preliminery judgements that Hussein had squat were proven to be correct.

12) It makes sense to invade as a last resort, with so much at stake. When there are no other viable options left -- treaties failed, sanctions failed (and were in fact corrupted), international pressure failed, UN resolutions failed, weapons inspections failed, limited "from the air only" military strikes had failed, and a final ultimatum had also failed -- it makes sense to reserve the right to use military force as a last resort.

Yes . . . it would make sense if it was really the last resort. It's true there were so many failures and a decade of crap. People made mistakes. HUGE mistakes. Finally, it almost seemed like some progress was being made, but then Bush had to go in a make another collossal blunder. What should have been a last resort was clearly pushed somewhat towards the fore.

There are those of us who believe that taking a law enforcement approach to terrorists is no longer acceptable. 3000 lives, a trillion dollars worth of damage to our economy, and a partially successful decapitation strike at our economic, military and governmental nerve centers is simply too much success for the terrorists. We must reassess and revise our thinking. The stakes are too high to play defense. We need to stop the next attack before it happens, if we can. THAT is where Iraq entered the picture.

Iraq's connection to 9-11 isn't that of having committed the crime. It was one of being too likely to contribute to the next such attack.

Bush: "Believe! Believe!"
America: "We Believe!"
World: "Waitaminnit! That cicumstantial evidence came from us and was labled "unreliable" when we gave it to you!"
America: "We Believe! Stone the terrorist Hussein!"

Even so, we gave every available diplomatic avenue one last chance. When Saddam's bad faith became clear -- lacking good faith, no option could suffice -- that was the end.

No option? Like the options that were hastily cobbled together and then ignored? No, there were a number of options getting tabled, but Hussein tried to kill daddy and that makes him a baaaaaad man.

Meanwhile, those of us who would see the next 9-11 style attack AVERTED have demanded that our government fulfill its oaths to provide for the common defense.

Something best achieved with the cooperation of as many as possible I'm afraid. Stomping on everyone else's toes doesn't really help that position.

Saddam's Iraq had numerous chances to choose to supply security assurances (regarding WMD programs and the fate of page after page of unsatisfied issues and questions in Hans Blix's UN Weapons Inspections report).

Failing that, should we trust Saddam's good will? Even lacking large weapons stockpiles, he might still have had some vials of biological agent tucked away in one of his cubby holes.

Not really. Limited shelf life. Abysmal storage conditions.

Nearly forgot: Incentive to stay alive. Kind of an important one that and he was fanatically paranoid about it too.

[Smegged]

There are many people who disagree with what I'm about to say, including close friends. However living in a free country gives me the right to give my opinions.

Sadaam was a terrorist and a murderer, both internationally and domestically. The war in Iraq was never really about WMDs. It was never really about oil. What the recent war in Iraq was all about was removing a crazy despot from the throne of a country that had the means and the will to build WMDs. Sadaam had 12 years to allow the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. He had 12 years to prove to the world that he was not a power crazed despot. Sadaam showed that he would only comply under the most extreme measures. Clinton (a democrat believe it or not!) was ready to declare war against Sadaam in 1998, until literally at the 11th hour Sadaam let weapons inspectors back into the country. However, even after this Sadaam continued to lie to the international community and specifically the UN. Enough was enough. Sadaam *had* to go. If he didn't then it would have been a matter of time before he turned on his perceived enemies, which is the West. Us. Those of us who are free to read this message board.

The terrorists that hit the US on September 11, 2001 proved something to the rest of the world. The US is not invulnerable, and neither is any other free country in the world. Sure, invasion is not going to be practical against the worlds one remaining superpower, but financing terrorists and terrorism is. Sadaam had proven over and over again that he was not to be trusted with the care of his own country, let alone anybody else. Iraq was a country with financial power, backed by their control of oil supplies. That is the real reason Sadaam had to be removed. He was not the only crazed despot in the world, but he was the crazed despot who had a track record of being unreliable, untrustworthy and had the power to potentially make things happen.

What I really do not like is all the sniping and bitterness hurled at the current US administration, both from outside and inside US borders. The tragic irony is that the US is a slave to her ideals. Freedom being at the heart of the US (and Australian) constitution, the US makes herself a target for slander without fear of retaliation. If by bad luck you were born in Iraq, make no mistake that you would not have had that freedom under Sadaam's regime. In fact if some of the stuff that I've heard from the media and the public were said about Sadaam under his regime, the people saying it would probably have had their tongues cut out... or worse.

-Smegged

EDIT: This was supposed to be under Warblade's last post.

[Sirian]

Bush speaks, America listens, America believes and Public enemy #1 is born. Yay for mass media eh?

Usama Bin Laden is public enemy #1.

Regime change in Iraq became official US policy under the WJ Clinton Administration, passed into law by our Congress and signed by President Clinton.

It's true there were so many failures and a decade of crap. People made mistakes. HUGE mistakes. Finally, it almost seemed like some progress was being made...

Your standards are unacceptably low. Saddam was not required to "seem like" he was making "some progress". He was required to cooperate in full. Lacking that, there were serious consequences promised, then delivered.

The missiles of which you speak were only one of many breaches. Dr. Blix divided his analysis into two areas. One was on the process, the other on the substance. Dr. Blix concluded that the regime was cooperating on process, but not on substance. "They have not made the fundamental decision to come clean," he told the UN Security Council. They continued to hide things from the inspectors, playing brinkmanship to the hilt. They were operating in bad faith, yet trying to put on enough of an appearance of cooperation that Saddam's bribed allies at the UN would have grounds by which to stall, hoping that political will in America would erode and the status quo would persist.

The scandal at the UN is the key. Those who criticize America's invasion assert that going through the UN was the only legitimate option. Yet how did the process manage to get dragged out for twelve years? Even you, WarBlade, describe the UN's process for dealing with Saddam as "a decade of crap". Those were not "mistakes", my friend. Those were the effects of bribes, graft, and corruption.

I'm waiting on the results of the investigations into Oil For Food, but currently, the figures being tossed around are upward of TWENTY BILLION dollars. From whom do we hear the loudest complaints about the removal of Saddam's regime? From the very nations who were taking Saddam's bribes and doing intensive oil industry business with his regime. Saddam gets a free pass on mass graves, rape and torture rooms to suppress dissidents, use of WMDs during war and on his own ethnic minorities, violating any number of international treaties and obligations, and anything else he cares to do, because he pays off those who are supposed to be holding him to account. Yay for the UN as an effective multilateral institution eh?

Something best achieved with the cooperation of as many as possible I'm afraid.

Bona fide cooperation is the only kind that counts.

If you listened to Bush's speech to Canadians in Halifax, you may have noted his emphasis on EFFECTIVE multilateral institutions. The farce at the UN has been exposed. UN credibility is at an all time low. Over what does the UN choose to go to bat? Over Chinese human rights violations? No. Over the Taliban's destruction of millenia-old Bhuddist monuments? No. Over slaughter and genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, Ethiopia? No. But to protect the flow of bribe money coming in from Saddam Hussein, they will move heaven and earth.

From the American perspective, all legitimate peaceful avenues to a resolution in Iraq were exhausted. Even Dr. Blix concluded that Saddam's regime had not made the fundamental decision to come clean. In the wake of September 11, nothing less than that was acceptable to us.

The lack of chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq is a major blunder by the USA. I admit that. However, this blunder is eclipsed by the scandals at the UN. The reason we arrived at war is that the UN sanctions failed. The UN sanctions failed because they became corrupted. Saddam managed to work around them, and the UN is directly complicit. Had the sanctions functioned as intended, had the UN upheld its obligations, perhaps the war might have been averted.

Where is the outcry about UN corruption? Where is the indignance on behalf of the world community that the UN enabled Saddam to cheat on the sanctions against him? Why should Saddam comply when he's got officials at the UN in his pocket? The consequences of war rightfully fall upon the folks at the UN who corrupted the diplomatic process. Lacking effective avenues by which a peaceful settlement might have been obtainable, the USA felt backed into a corner by numerous other nations CLEARLY operating in bad faith.

If the world wants to avert the next war, they had better get serious about offering EFFECTIVE multilateral options. The United States is done with allowing corruption and scandal to override our national interests. The stakes have grown too high for us to be able to humor the international community's farces any longer. Clean up your act, or become irrelevant, because as we have shown, we CAN work around the corruption at the UN if we must. We would really rather not have to go that route. Please help us to reform the processes and institutions by which disputes may be peaceably resolved.


- Sirian

[Kodi]

As a Canadian teenager, I don't care much about politics, but I did hear about sections of Bush's speech in Halifax. I would just like to comment on a few things, as a Canadian.

1. This is Bush's first visit to Canada since he came into power. We are next-door neighbours, and there are often unsecure relationships between us two countries. Why can't he visit more often? (And not just Ontario and the Maritimes. Us people living on the West Coast as well as the Prairies could use a visit)

2. US is our best friend, whether we like it or not. The Americans have hightech missiles and tanks, and Canada has little farmers with sticks. If we were attacked, I believe that the Americans would come in to help us.

3. About economy, the Canadian dollar is rising quite rapidly, as the American dollar diminishes ever so slowly, but this is no reason to close borders to Canadian softwood lumber and beef. I think in this way, our relationships are unfair.

4. Many Canadians dispise Bush, in fact, in a survey, I believe about 75%+ of Canadians would have voted Kerry, if they could vote. I personally do not like Bush all that much, but he is a good leader, and he is doing what he thinks is best for his cuontry and for the world. If you look at it, he is the most powerful person in the world (ignoring the whole Senate thing).

On the news right now, they are talking about more deaths in Iraq, and that upsets me. Whenever a leader is removed from power, a void is left behind, thus creating havoc. Some examples were after the execution of Louis XVI, after Napoleon was exiled, after Saddam Hussein was removed from power, and now since Arafat has recently died without choosing a successor. I think that Bush's choice to invade Iraq was a bad one, and in some ways, he has made our world more dangerous than it had been before.

My opinions of course....

~Kodi

[ShadowHM]

Hi Kodi

Some responses for you:

1. This is Bush's first visit to Canada since he came into power. We are next-door neighbours, and there are often unsecure relationships between us two countries. Why can't he visit more often? (And not just Ontario and the Maritimes. Us people living on the West Coast as well as the Prairies could use a visit)

The President was not just visiting to share a cup of coffee. He has been a busy man since his first election, for starters. For seconders, he and our former Prime Minister were not on the best of terms anyway.

He has an agenda for this term. It includes trying as best he can to get his allies on board with his agenda for the war on terrorism. Canada was a good place to start. Halifax got him this time as he was making an effort to publicly thank our East Coast citizens for their aid and succour in the aftermath of 9/11.

2. US is our best friend, whether we like it or not. The Americans have hightech missiles and tanks, and Canada has little farmers with sticks. If we were attacked, I believe that the Americans would come in to help us.

If sovereign nations can be said to have 'best friends' at all, then the relationship between Canada and the U.S. of A. certainly does fit the description. And if we were attacked, frankly, it would be almost certainly be part and parcel of a larger attack on all of North America, so it would behoove the Americans to come in to aid us.

3. About economy, the Canadian dollar is rising quite rapidly, as the American dollar diminishes ever so slowly, but this is no reason to close borders to Canadian softwood lumber and beef. I think in this way, our relationships are unfair.

The recent rise in the Canadian dollar has little to do with us and much to do with the fall of the American dollar world-wide. Further, the issues surrounding softwood lumber and beef are unrelated to the value of our dollar and have been ongoing issues for some time. And, yes, certainly our relationship is 'unfair' in some ways. They are numerous and economically powerful, and we are rather dependent on them for markets for our products. There is no 'fair' when the relationship is lop-sided. We just do our best for our people and they do the same for theirs. This means, at the moment, that economic sanctions on our softwood lumber will likely continue, as will the ban on our beef.

4. Many Canadians dispise Bush, in fact, in a survey, I believe about 75%+ of Canadians would have voted Kerry, if they could vote. I personally do not like Bush all that much, but he is a good leader, and he is doing what he thinks is best for his cuontry and for the world. If you look at it, he is the most powerful person in the world (ignoring the whole Senate thing).

He most certainly is the most powerful person in the world. I certainly hope he is doing what he thinks is best for his country. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that might also be best for Canadians, or any other people, for that matter. It may be. But it also may not. Hence the need for him to visit us and other nations to persuade us.

[Sirian]

Thanks for the reply, Kodi. I appreciate hearing your perspective.

President Bush probably should visit Canada more often. I was surprised to learn that this was his first trip there. Thanking Canadians for help during 9-11 more than three years after the fact? That was probably the most positive message available and overdue. A formal apology for the accidental friendly fire deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan may be in order, too, but that was probably not selected out of fear of making relations worse instead of better.


Mad Cow is such a sticky issue. The disease can incubate for a long time without showing symptoms. SARS was another similar issue, the way it hit Toronto so hard. Erring on the side of caution with highly spreadable and dangerous contagions is only prudent. I'm not sure which side of the beef dispute is closer to having right on their side, but I do know that Japanese closed their markets to American beef when we found a case down here. It is just one of those things where it is more important to stamp out the problem than anything else.


I'm also glad that you can disagree with some American policy without ascribing to us ill intentions and criminality. There are quite a few folks who assert that we have sinister intentions, and their voices are getting a lot of play in world media.


- Sirian

[AlanSHB]

I'll try to keep this to as little rhetoric as possible, it's clearly a sensitive subject, and I'm not very interested in proving one side right or wrong.

I personally do not like the Bush Administration.

My decision to dislike them is based on what I perceive to be facts--

1. The Bush administration contains a large chunk of Neo-Conservatives. Who, if you were to examine their past positions, are not the most reassuring leaders one could choose. Several of the Neo-Conservatives were Trotskyites; this is not reassuring. There's a published paper entitled "The New American Century" that proposes several rather imperialistic agendas, none of which seem historically sound.

2. They ignored Osama's group for over 200 days, even when they'd had a plan of action turned over to them by the Clinton administration. That's a matter of public record. When September 11 occurred they did take action, but that was after the attack succeeded, and who knows what would have happened had we decided to go after Osama's organization from day one. Clinton should probably have done so as well, but this isn't about appearing to be better than Clinton, it's about appearing to be doing a good job on your watch.

3. They have repeatedly and systematically lied to the American public. Even more irritating, the "Ken Rove Campaign Methodology" further encourages this type of behavior. The KR method depends on segmenting the electorate, appealing to individual yet highly cohesive segments by promising them each a particularly sensitive bit of policy and glossing over the other bits of your policy. Also attacking the other candidate through the use of third party campaign group that don't have to provide full disclosure of sources, or obey campaign finance laws, is highly encouraged.

4. They decided to start a war on "terror", which is like warring on sunshine. Then they used it as an excuse to further their own previously published agenda (remaking the Middle East while America is at the apex of her power). Neatly enough, they have not managed to conclude the "war on terror" so like the "war on drugs" it could drag on indefinitely and provide a ready excuse to further acts of unrelated aggression. Since no one can prove themselves to NOT be a terrorist, the war on terror is a nice easy to swallow excuse for cleaning up Iraq, Syria, Iran, Korea, Cuba, and the other cesspools of the world that the current bunch feels like fighting.


That's why I dislike Bush and co.

I have a healthy FEAR Bush and co as well.

For one thing, I don't like the "Safety, Security, Patriotism" speeches. Whenever my government starts talking about safety, security, patriotism, I recall Benjamin Franklin’s comment that those who desire safety at the cost of liberty deserve neither.

I also fear the fallout of their agenda should it not go rosily and the fallout of behaving just as the enemies of America would have us behave. America does not further her goals as a diplomatic state (founded on the ideal of freedom and market determined (in) equality) by serving as global policemen.

Even if you posit that Iraq had to be dealt with by the military, not having a clear exit strategy going in was remarkable hubris, and a clear indication that we NEVER PLANNED TO LEAVE. That's not the sort of act that wins you friends, in fact I'm sure the Anti-American militaristic group recruitment numbers are on the up and up as a direct result of behaving just like the imperialist pigs their propaganda predicted we were.

Finally I regret the decisions that this administration and the GOP in general are making regarding domestic policy.

The largest regret is of course for the deliberate decision to run up the deficit. When you look at this beside the sudden "Social Security Crisis" propaganda, it indicates to me that we will be trying to create a crisis real financial crisis for social security in the future, that would not have been there had we simply behaved in a fiscally responsible manner during this administration. The Social Security fund has been robbed by the General Fund of some 3 trillion dollars, and the first of those bonds will be coming due soon. This is not a surprise. This is not the time to be spending up the deficit. If you don't like social security, feel free to say so, run your campaign that way, and change it if you get elected. Running on a "Save Social Security" platform then manipulating the books so there will be a Crisis that "forces" you to butcher the system is disingenuous and frankly repellent.

There are other issues of course, but that's most of what I can think that needs to be said regarding Bush. For the record, I don't think Bush is the devil, or my savior, I think he's a man with some goals, most of which he's not being honest about, nor do they benefit me and mine.

Having said all that--I'm hoping it all works out as the Bush camp keeps telling us it will. No one will be happier to be wrong than I, should the Neo-Conservative agenda work out. After all, the alternative is really quite dire.



Admittedly, the populace has spoken. So everyone settle in to watch, these are interesting times.

Alan

I don't want to have to address the media bias argument/distration/rhetoric later so please consider the following before indicating that I'm biased--I don't actually watch much mass media anymore except for the odd weather broadcast. I find that between the internet, the economist, the congressional record and simple observation I can stay fairly well informed about politics. I'll freely admit I don't know nearly as much about who's sleeping with what football star anymore though, or how many people were shot last night.