Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Clueless about Canada: Conservafreaks in this country
Jax
Well, he didn't exactly put it that way, but Paul Martin and the Liberals are still trying to find new and amusing ways of pissing off our superpower neighbors to the south.
He said Canada will be an equal partner with the United States in defending North America, but not at any price.
"The foreign policy I envisage is certainly part of NATO, part of the great Western alliance," he said. "But let there be no doubt: We are not going to be out there as the handmaiden of any country."
As you can see this is a simple statement that Canada is sovereign and will not acquiece to anything and everything that comes out of the U.S. That this lady thinks that this is an insult to the U.S. shows some seriously skewed thinking. We are a country not a colony, an ally and not a servant. We are capable of making up our own minds.
I agree with the statement above. There are some prices that are too high, sometimes you have to stand up for yourselves. Look at Tony "The Poodle" Blair's Britan: They have jumped hoops for the Americans yet what have they gotten for their blood spilled on the sand? Did the Americans spare them from the steel tarrifs, no. Did the U.S. give them any breaks for the sycophantive grovelling. None. They were the servants of the U.S. and it served them poorly. Why should we do the same? Make them realize that we are reasonable but we can say no.
Catchy turn of phrase, but I don't think the US was under any illusion that we are their bitch. What Martin tends to forget (especially facing an election) is that we are not equal partners. We do not have the money, the sheer numbers, the equipment or the gumption to defend North America on equal footing with the States. They are bigger and stronger than us, and equality with them is a pipe dream.
Miss girlie on the right forgets that they also have a greater need for defense seeing as the US is trying to be world hegemon. People don't realize that Canada is one of the riches countries in the world, if we decide to do something as a nation, like defend ourself we have the economic and industrial capacity to do so. If we want to be a nuclear power then we have the scientific skill to become one. The fact of the matter is we realize that we are facing no major threats. Any major expenditure for defense would be as a favour to the U.S. . To save them money, because it is easier for us to defend our ports of entry then it is for them to defend our border. The difference is orders of magnitude. Equality is not just a matter of magnitude, it is magnitude times necessity. We have a smaller magnitude but also a smaller need plus we represent a strategic location to them. These second two things balance the first and makes us near equals in this defense. Equal enough to demand it in the opening round of negotiations.
On the upside, he has noticed that we're throwing away money that we don't have.
The International Policy Statement was supposed to have been ready in the fall of 2004, but Martin asked that it be re-written several times [...and only brought out in the event he needed it to defend his position as Prime Minister... - RG] to deliver on his promise to redefine Canada's role in the world by:
- Reshaping relations between Canada and the United States [As evidenced in the above "handmaiden" statement - RG].
- Improving business ties with emerging economic powerhouses such as China [commies - RG] and India.
- Targeting foreign aid at a smaller number of countries, whittling the list down to 25 from the current 155.
So the whittling of foreign aid I see as a good thing. Charity begins at home, and we can hardly pay our own bills, let alone anyone else's.
The number of countries recieving aid is going down but the total amount is going up. The idea is to greatly increase the impact of Canadian aid.
Another concern, however, is if Martin's government actually plans on delivering any of these changes.
Bruce Campbell , the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, was among the skeptics.
"It would be naive to think that it wasn't in some way connected to diverting attention away from the political turmoil, scandal and so forth," he said.
This is, however, correct.
